[martyup]

I don't understand the philosophy of passing the ball to Keefe at the top of the key and having him wait for someone to break free on the wing or near mid-court.  On rare occasions he passes (hands off) while setting a screen and breaks to the basket for a dunk.  Very rare.  Mostly this play just eats up time on the shot clock and forces us to make a wild drive to the basket and throw up a prayer (ala Delaire).  If Keefe could shoot the mid-range shot (like Haley) I could understand this approach.  But Keefe would never shoot unless he was right under the basket.

We have failed this season to implement an offense that gave Jones good looks at 3 point shots.  That was one of our major offensive strengths and we squandered it.  We allowed Silva and Delaire to play 1-on-5 "I'm the hero" basketball for too many minutes.  We had a PG in MOC that could have been extremely effective in running a motion offense and we wasted his talent.

Our two wins against USC prove that this team had the talent to play good team basketball.  With good coaching a team should improve in their offensive cohesiveness as the season progresses.  Our offensive cohesiveness decreased as the season progressed.

I hope Mr. Muir reads the Cardboard.  Hey Bernard . . .

[martyup]

I don't understand the philosophy of passing the ball to Keefe at the top of the key and having him wait for someone to break free on the wing or near mid-court.  On rare occasions he passes (hands off) while setting a screen and breaks to the basket for a dunk.  Very rare.  Mostly this play just eats up time on the shot clock and forces us to make a wild drive to the basket and throw up a prayer (ala Delaire).  If Keefe could shoot the mid-range shot (like Haley) I could understand this approach.  But Keefe would never shoot unless he was right under the basket.

We have failed this season to implement an offense that gave Jones good looks at 3 point shots.  That was one of our major offensive strengths and we squandered it.  We allowed Silva and Delaire to play 1-on-5 "I'm the hero" basketball for too many minutes.  We had a PG in MOC that could have been extremely effective in running a motion offense and we wasted his talent.

Our two wins against USC prove that this team had the talent to play good team basketball.  With good coaching a team should improve in their offensive cohesiveness as the season progresses.  Our offensive cohesiveness decreased as the season progressed.

I hope Mr. Muir reads the Cardboard.  Hey Bernard . . .

[teejers1]

I don't understand the philosophy of passing the ball to Keefe at the top of the key and having him wait for someone to break free on the wing or near mid-court.  On rare occasions he passes (hands off) while setting a screen and breaks to the basket for a dunk.  Very rare.  Mostly this play just eats up time on the shot clock and forces us to make a wild drive to the basket and throw up a prayer (ala Delaire).  If Keefe could shoot the mid-range shot (like Haley) I could understand this approach.  But Keefe would never shoot unless he was right under the basket.

We have failed this season to implement an offense that gave Jones good looks at 3 point shots.  That was one of our major offensive strengths and we squandered it.  We allowed Silva and Delaire to play 1-on-5 "I'm the hero" basketball for too many minutes.  We had a PG in MOC that could have been extremely effective in running a motion offense and we wasted his talent.

Our two wins against USC prove that this team had the talent to play good team basketball.  With good coaching a team should improve in their offensive cohesiveness as the season progresses.  Our offensive cohesiveness decreased as the season progressed.

I hope Mr. Muir reads the Cardboard.  Hey Bernard . . .

It's laughable to continually see references to "we aren't getting Jones good enough looks for three."  In this day and age, everybody switches on screens, so it's not easy to say "we need to screen more for Jones."  That is a product of a long bygone era.

And the Duke "offense" is a perfect example of what Stanford is missing - and has been missing for years and years - players who can beat their man off the bounce.  You have to have that.  THAT is how you get open threes, by forcing defensive help or rotations and finding the open guy.  Stanford has NO ONE who can beat his man off the bounce; hence, very few open threes.

It's not that complicated, really.

What is much harder is remedying it.  The one guy who gave us some glimmer of hope, Terry, bounced prematurely.  The other guy bounced expectedly after one year, while giving Stanford pretty much nothing in the process.

I'm fine critiquing Haase for results - not enough Ws and too many late-season collapses.  But to think there will be some magic coaching elixir to drum up open shots and a good offense with this roster . . . well, I think that's a bit of a pipedream.  Maybe you run Princeton O and hope to get some backdoor cuts/layups; but really, a Princeton O with this roster would just lead to a lot of what we're already seeing:  forced shots at the end of the shot clock.

[teejers1]

I don't understand the philosophy of passing the ball to Keefe at the top of the key and having him wait for someone to break free on the wing or near mid-court.  On rare occasions he passes (hands off) while setting a screen and breaks to the basket for a dunk.  Very rare.  Mostly this play just eats up time on the shot clock and forces us to make a wild drive to the basket and throw up a prayer (ala Delaire).  If Keefe could shoot the mid-range shot (like Haley) I could understand this approach.  But Keefe would never shoot unless he was right under the basket.

We have failed this season to implement an offense that gave Jones good looks at 3 point shots.  That was one of our major offensive strengths and we squandered it.  We allowed Silva and Delaire to play 1-on-5 "I'm the hero" basketball for too many minutes.  We had a PG in MOC that could have been extremely effective in running a motion offense and we wasted his talent.

Our two wins against USC prove that this team had the talent to play good team basketball.  With good coaching a team should improve in their offensive cohesiveness as the season progresses.  Our offensive cohesiveness decreased as the season progressed.

I hope Mr. Muir reads the Cardboard.  Hey Bernard . . .

It's laughable to continually see references to "we aren't getting Jones good enough looks for three."  In this day and age, everybody switches on screens, so it's not easy to say "we need to screen more for Jones."  That is a product of a long bygone era.

And the Duke "offense" is a perfect example of what Stanford is missing - and has been missing for years and years - players who can beat their man off the bounce.  You have to have that.  THAT is how you get open threes, by forcing defensive help or rotations and finding the open guy.  Stanford has NO ONE who can beat his man off the bounce; hence, very few open threes.

It's not that complicated, really.

What is much harder is remedying it.  The one guy who gave us some glimmer of hope, Terry, bounced prematurely.  The other guy bounced expectedly after one year, while giving Stanford pretty much nothing in the process.

I'm fine critiquing Haase for results - not enough Ws and too many late-season collapses.  But to think there will be some magic coaching elixir to drum up open shots and a good offense with this roster . . . well, I think that's a bit of a pipedream.  Maybe you run Princeton O and hope to get some backdoor cuts/layups; but really, a Princeton O with this roster would just lead to a lot of what we're already seeing:  forced shots at the end of the shot clock.

[CompSci87]

Yeah, why bother with screening for shooters. The Warriors never do it, they just have Curry and Thompson create on their own, right?

[CompSci87]

Yeah, why bother with screening for shooters. The Warriors never do it, they just have Curry and Thompson create on their own, right?

[teejers1]

Yeah, why bother with screening for shooters. The Warriors never do it, they just have Curry and Thompson create on their own, right?

Yeah, the Cardinal have guys with the handle and take-to-the-rack ability that Curry has.  Hell, even Klay is better/stronger than anyone Stanford has (even in relative terms).  Plus, the Cardinal have all kinds of guys who can make treys from 3, 5, and even 8 feet beyond the arc.

Oh wait . . . they don't?

Lastly, if you watch the Cardinal, they do screen and try to open up shooters at the three line.  Perhaps not enough to your liking - and that could be a fair critique, given the overall O of this team - but it's not some magic ingredient that will turn this group into a good offensive team.

[teejers1]

Yeah, why bother with screening for shooters. The Warriors never do it, they just have Curry and Thompson create on their own, right?

Yeah, the Cardinal have guys with the handle and take-to-the-rack ability that Curry has.  Hell, even Klay is better/stronger than anyone Stanford has (even in relative terms).  Plus, the Cardinal have all kinds of guys who can make treys from 3, 5, and even 8 feet beyond the arc.

Oh wait . . . they don't?

Lastly, if you watch the Cardinal, they do screen and try to open up shooters at the three line.  Perhaps not enough to your liking - and that could be a fair critique, given the overall O of this team - but it's not some magic ingredient that will turn this group into a good offensive team.

[CompSci87]

Yeah, why bother with screening for shooters. The Warriors never do it, they just have Curry and Thompson create on their own, right?

Yeah, the Cardinal have guys with the handle and take-to-the-rack ability that Curry has.  Hell, even Klay is better/stronger than anyone Stanford has (even in relative terms).  Plus, the Cardinal have all kinds of guys who can make treys from 3, 5, and even 8 feet beyond the arc.

Oh wait . . . they don't?

Lastly, if you watch the Cardinal, they do screen and try to open up shooters at the three line.  Perhaps not enough to your liking - and that could be a fair critique, given the overall O of this team - but it's not some magic ingredient that will turn this group into a good offensive team.

I'm afraid your sarcasm detector didn't fire. The Warriors set zillions of screens, constantly. That even despite Curry's ability to beat people off the dribble. That was my point. Screening for shooters is hardly the product of a bygone era

[CompSci87]

Yeah, why bother with screening for shooters. The Warriors never do it, they just have Curry and Thompson create on their own, right?

Yeah, the Cardinal have guys with the handle and take-to-the-rack ability that Curry has.  Hell, even Klay is better/stronger than anyone Stanford has (even in relative terms).  Plus, the Cardinal have all kinds of guys who can make treys from 3, 5, and even 8 feet beyond the arc.

Oh wait . . . they don't?

Lastly, if you watch the Cardinal, they do screen and try to open up shooters at the three line.  Perhaps not enough to your liking - and that could be a fair critique, given the overall O of this team - but it's not some magic ingredient that will turn this group into a good offensive team.

I'm afraid your sarcasm detector didn't fire. The Warriors set zillions of screens, constantly. That even despite Curry's ability to beat people off the dribble. That was my point. Screening for shooters is hardly the product of a bygone era

[teejers1]

Yeah, why bother with screening for shooters. The Warriors never do it, they just have Curry and Thompson create on their own, right?

Yeah, the Cardinal have guys with the handle and take-to-the-rack ability that Curry has.  Hell, even Klay is better/stronger than anyone Stanford has (even in relative terms).  Plus, the Cardinal have all kinds of guys who can make treys from 3, 5, and even 8 feet beyond the arc.

Oh wait . . . they don't?

Lastly, if you watch the Cardinal, they do screen and try to open up shooters at the three line.  Perhaps not enough to your liking - and that could be a fair critique, given the overall O of this team - but it's not some magic ingredient that will turn this group into a good offensive team.

I'm afraid your sarcasm detector didn't fire. The Warriors set zillions of screens, constantly. That even despite Curry's ability to beat people off the dribble. That was my point. Screening for shooters is hardly the product of a bygone era

Right, but the effectiveness of "screening for shooters" depends on the capabilities of the shooters and the team at large.  

I wish a new coach could come in right now and instill the O that you think will change this team.  Or maybe even see Haase implement a "screen for Jones" premium on all offensive possessions.  Maybe you'd be proven correct that the O would noticeably improve. I'm just not seeing it.  I see switches everywhere and an inability to capitalize because Stanford doesn't have anyone who can beat people off the dribble . . . even supposed "mismatches."

[teejers1]

Yeah, why bother with screening for shooters. The Warriors never do it, they just have Curry and Thompson create on their own, right?

Yeah, the Cardinal have guys with the handle and take-to-the-rack ability that Curry has.  Hell, even Klay is better/stronger than anyone Stanford has (even in relative terms).  Plus, the Cardinal have all kinds of guys who can make treys from 3, 5, and even 8 feet beyond the arc.

Oh wait . . . they don't?

Lastly, if you watch the Cardinal, they do screen and try to open up shooters at the three line.  Perhaps not enough to your liking - and that could be a fair critique, given the overall O of this team - but it's not some magic ingredient that will turn this group into a good offensive team.

I'm afraid your sarcasm detector didn't fire. The Warriors set zillions of screens, constantly. That even despite Curry's ability to beat people off the dribble. That was my point. Screening for shooters is hardly the product of a bygone era

Right, but the effectiveness of "screening for shooters" depends on the capabilities of the shooters and the team at large.  

I wish a new coach could come in right now and instill the O that you think will change this team.  Or maybe even see Haase implement a "screen for Jones" premium on all offensive possessions.  Maybe you'd be proven correct that the O would noticeably improve. I'm just not seeing it.  I see switches everywhere and an inability to capitalize because Stanford doesn't have anyone who can beat people off the dribble . . . even supposed "mismatches."

[old spanish trail]

Yeah, why bother with screening for shooters. The Warriors never do it, they just have Curry and Thompson create on their own, right?

Yeah, the Cardinal have guys with the handle and take-to-the-rack ability that Curry has.  Hell, even Klay is better/stronger than anyone Stanford has (even in relative terms).  Plus, the Cardinal have all kinds of guys who can make treys from 3, 5, and even 8 feet beyond the arc.

Oh wait . . . they don't?

Lastly, if you watch the Cardinal, they do screen and try to open up shooters at the three line.  Perhaps not enough to your liking - and that could be a fair critique, given the overall O of this team - but it's not some magic ingredient that will turn this group into a good offensive team.

I'm afraid your sarcasm detector didn't fire. The Warriors set zillions of screens, constantly. That even despite Curry's ability to beat people off the dribble. That was my point. Screening for shooters is hardly the product of a bygone era

Right, but the effectiveness of "screening for shooters" depends on the capabilities of the shooters and the team at large.  

I wish a new coach could come in right now and instill the O that you think will change this team.  Or maybe even see Haase implement a "screen for Jones" premium on all offensive possessions.  Maybe you'd be proven correct that the O would noticeably improve. I'm just not seeing it.  I see switches everywhere and an inability to capitalize because Stanford doesn't have anyone who can beat people off the dribble . . . even supposed "mismatches."

I think Raynaud can beat his man off the dribble...and hopefully doesn't fumble it. :) I also think we could try 5-10 screens per game. True, there's no Curry to use a screen with his dribble, but he uses plenty without the dribble, and just relies on the the pass off the screen.   Curious, how would you describe Haase's offense?

[old spanish trail]

Yeah, why bother with screening for shooters. The Warriors never do it, they just have Curry and Thompson create on their own, right?

Yeah, the Cardinal have guys with the handle and take-to-the-rack ability that Curry has.  Hell, even Klay is better/stronger than anyone Stanford has (even in relative terms).  Plus, the Cardinal have all kinds of guys who can make treys from 3, 5, and even 8 feet beyond the arc.

Oh wait . . . they don't?

Lastly, if you watch the Cardinal, they do screen and try to open up shooters at the three line.  Perhaps not enough to your liking - and that could be a fair critique, given the overall O of this team - but it's not some magic ingredient that will turn this group into a good offensive team.

I'm afraid your sarcasm detector didn't fire. The Warriors set zillions of screens, constantly. That even despite Curry's ability to beat people off the dribble. That was my point. Screening for shooters is hardly the product of a bygone era

Right, but the effectiveness of "screening for shooters" depends on the capabilities of the shooters and the team at large.  

I wish a new coach could come in right now and instill the O that you think will change this team.  Or maybe even see Haase implement a "screen for Jones" premium on all offensive possessions.  Maybe you'd be proven correct that the O would noticeably improve. I'm just not seeing it.  I see switches everywhere and an inability to capitalize because Stanford doesn't have anyone who can beat people off the dribble . . . even supposed "mismatches."

I think Raynaud can beat his man off the dribble...and hopefully doesn't fumble it. :) I also think we could try 5-10 screens per game. True, there's no Curry to use a screen with his dribble, but he uses plenty without the dribble, and just relies on the the pass off the screen.   Curious, how would you describe Haase's offense?

[SamuelMcF]

Curious, how would you describe Haase's offense?

I legitimately don't think I could if I tried. That seems to be (at least part of) the problem.

[SamuelMcF]

Curious, how would you describe Haase's offense?

I legitimately don't think I could if I tried. That seems to be (at least part of) the problem.