Martin Offense vs Pearl Offense

#76
#76
bleedingTNorange said:
I agree. Losing to Indianapolis, or by 30 in the opening round of the NCAA was quite the overachievement.
Click to expand...

Getting our butt kicked at home by Austin Peay was the most embarrassing overachievement in Tennessee history and that belongs all to counzo. Of course Mercer and Middle Tennessee State rank right up there. Shall I go on?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#82
#82
bleedingTNorange said:
Just to kinda put things in persoective...

Pearls final season:
2010-2011: 69.9ppg 43.1%fg


Martin this season;
2013-2014: 73.8ppg 44%fg
Click to expand...

I didn't know what the numbers were, but I knew we were pretty mediocre offensively in Pearl's last season at Tennessee.
 
#83
#83
bleedingTNorange said:
Just to kinda put things in persoective...

Pearls final season:
2010-2011: 69.9ppg 43.1%fg


Martin this season;
2013-2014: 73.8ppg 44%fg
Click to expand...



skew it however you want it. That's how you roll. 2 NIT's in a row suck. March Madness bids don't. 6-4 in 2013 sucks. Not being 6-4 in BP's worst year thru 10 vs CM's best team thru 10 isn't somewhere you want to go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#84
#84
I laugh at the gals who post about Pearls offense. We never had trouble getting the ball on the rim. We never had trouble getting shots up. Walkons weren't searching for confidence because they had confidence CM's seniors yearn for. We weren't fighting for CIT bids. That's coaching, and some of you wouldn't know it if you were looking for it and it humped your face. A big part of coaching is letting your players play basketball and putting them in positions to succeed and be confident. Some of you fools will never understand that, and I'm tired of having to explain it. BP took us to NCAA heights and consistency that we haven't seen. Period. If you want to take away from that, go ahead, you already look like a dumbass anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#85
#85
Spartacavolus said:
skew it however you want it. That's how you roll. 2 NIT's in a row suck. March Madness bids don't. 6-4 in 2013 sucks. Not being 6-4 in BP's worst year thru 10 vs CM's best team thru 10 isn't somewhere you want to go.
Click to expand...

He went on to say he was not surprised I missed the sarcasm in the post you quoted.
 
#86
#86
goldvol said:
I was never impressed with CBP's offensive set. Yes, I loved to see the up tempo, transition plays, but the halfcourt offensive plan generally was to dribble up top for the first 25 seconds while everyone stands around, and then spend the final 9 seconds running a play. I feel like if you are running something for the entire possession, there will be plenty of times that you get an open look.
Click to expand...

Nice post. Pearls 1/2 court O was never really good IMO. A lot of O was created by high pressure D, transition, and the most uncanny way of scoring on inbounds plays that I've ever seen.
 
#88
#88
I'll never understand why people can't debate things and discuss things without insulting each other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#92
#92
HardKnoxVol said:
You do realize he did win with it? That was our offense. We relied on fast breaks and transition game. Where were you during BP's tenure?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't think I was specific enough with that. I meant that once the team was filled with his recruits he couldn't run that system successfully anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#93
#93
livefaith said:
Nice post. Pearls 1/2 court O was never really good IMO. A lot of O was created by high pressure D, transition, and the most uncanny way of scoring on inbounds plays that I've ever seen.
Click to expand...

Still, it is important to note that Pearl's deepest run (Elite 8) was with a team that did not press, and played a lot of half-court sets and dribble drive with Maze.

Pearl had a way of finding something that would work. I remember how many turnovers they created on inbounds plays. Crazy. Pearl's teams were very good at disrupting more talented teams. Yes, his offensive strategy wasn't the best, but his teams always made up for it by being excellent in some area. No one can say that about CCM.
 
#94
#94
Roustabout said:
Still, it is important to note that Pearl's deepest run (Elite 8) was with a team that did not press, and played a lot of half-court sets and dribble drive with Maze.

Pearl had a way of finding something that would work. I remember how many turnovers they created on inbounds plays. Crazy. Pearl's teams were very good at disrupting more talented teams. Yes, his offensive strategy wasn't the best, but his teams always made up for it by being excellent in some area. No one can say that about CCM.
Click to expand...

I agree, Pearl was able to adapt his game plan to the to the personnel he had on hand.
 
#95
#95
I'll add to my post on the previous page, and answer the OP's question for those who're interested about Pearl's offense as well. Like others have posted, Pearl ran a modified flex he called "cutters." Jerry Sloan ran his version of a modified flex when he was with Utah, and Gary Williams ran a modified flex at Maryland as well. The flex offense is a continuity, and has been around since the 70's. It has a two-guard front, and three players along the baseline (two in the corners, and one opposite ballside near the lane line - depending on where the coach wants the screen set). A traditional flex uses a continuous screen the screener action by screening for the flex cutter on the baseline, and setting a pin-down for said screener. Unlike a true motion offense, it's extremely structured and easy to scout. However, most flex coaches use a number of counters and entries into flex depending on how they're being defended. Pearl's cutters" wasn't a traditional flex offense, and didn't use the continuous flex screen/downscreen action. They used the pin-down to get a shooter a look at the top, or to get a player they wanted in the flex cut action on the baseline, but it wasn't a true flex. Like most coaches who run a form of flex, Pearl used a number of wrinkles and entries into his offense that varied from year to year based on personnel. For instance, if I remember correctly they ran Lofton off a lot of staggereds like most coaches do for shooters, and they became more ball screen oriented on the perimeter with Hopson, Prince, etc. Pearl's philosophy was in no way complex or innovative, but the schematics of the game were far from his strength as a coach. That's not a bad thing, and like I quoted in my previous post,"there's a lot of different ways to get to town." Coaching is a bottom line business, and it's not always the best X and O minds who're the most successful. Kevin Eastman, a longtime and current NBA assistant on Doc River's staff, is one of the absolute best teachers of the game today, but he had 127-132 record in nine seasons as a collegiate head coach. Another perfect example is Kevin O'neill, most will think I'm delusional in saying this, but he knows more about the intricacies of the game than most coaches on the planet. However, one's knowledge doesn't always translate to wins, and there's so many other necessary traits that a quality head coach must possess.
 
#96
#96
Both suck but Martin's teams are way better in the half court. Bruce Pearl depended on chaos and turnovers. It seemed like everyone had a green light and 3's were launched at will. Also, just a bunch of guys running the baseline and passing back and forth at the top of the key. Super elementary and I hated it. Can't complain too much because it worked a lot. We always had athletic guys on the floor that could make plays. Defense was even worse because you can't press good guards. Then, play a team like North Carolina or Kentucky with even or better athletes and you can get ran out of the gym playing that run and gun style. It's impossible to slow it up against those kind of teams because your half court sets are garbage.

Martin's teams seem to have a better understanding what a half court offense is but just can't execute it. I think if he actually adjusted some, we'd be much better but he seems like a guy that refuses to abandon any type of game plan when it aint working because maybe it's going to start working or something....no clue.
 
#97
#97
Shaun I agree just didn't wanna quote you, but something I would add. If we had a Lofton or Jajuan our offense would look a lot better obviously lol. Shooters like that can bail out an offense and that's something we don't have, at least on a consistent basis.
 
#98
#98
bleedingTNorange said:
Just to kinda put things in persoective...

Pearls final season:
2010-2011: 69.9ppg 43.1%fg


Martin this season;
2013-2014: 73.8ppg 44%fg
Click to expand...

just to put things into perspective....

CBP 6 straight NCAA appearances!

CCM zero NCAA appearances.

crazy isn't it....

:loco:
 
#100
#100
dooley2 said:
Pearl IS John Wooden compared to Cuonzo. And Pearl's flex offense scored more points than Cuonzo's offense (on average of course).

Give it up, Cuonzo is not as good a coach as Bruce. Bruce isn't coming back, but the grass was so much greener when he was here.
Click to expand...

Amen and amen.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top