Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

Should the Bulls run the Princeton offense?

587 Views 4 Replies 4 Participants Last post by  Spud
Seems like the next logical step in implementing the ideology.

Rooting for the Tigers is more than just a parochial allegiance; it means that you must pay homage to a particular approach to basketball that has come to be known as the Princeton offense.
The offense had a number of specific virtues that helped Princeton acquire a cult following. For one thing, by neutralizing the advantages enjoyed by the team with superior size or talent in any given contest, it made upsets more likely.
But the most important virtue was that Princeton's offense suggested—well, virtue. Specifically, the virtues of selflessness and intellect. Players don't do much dribbling in the Princeton offense; shots come almost exclusively off assists, and there is little room for the individual to shine. In addition, because the offense appeared so complex—and because it frequently befuddled more athletically gifted teams—the Tigers' success suggested the triumph of intelligence over talent.
Perhaps the most far-reaching analysis belonged to George Will, who in a 1998 column wrote, "One should not commit sociology promiscuously, but this team might be a leading indicator of cultural improvement, advancing virtues important in society and decreasingly apparent in sports."
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Sacramento has a Princeton-like offense. Tons of passing, tons of swinging through the perimeter. Why penetrate-and-kick when you can just weave the ball in and out to create open space? The chances of getting a turnover by putting the ball on the floor are much higher than the chances of defenders successfully getting in the passing lane, if the offense is being run properly and movement off-the-ball is solid.

We are a jump-shooting team, but I might add that we are a GOOD jump-shooting team. We are shooting 44.5% as a team. Getting open shots by scrambling in an offense that moves the ball extremely well is probably more complex to execute than plays keyed on a ball-handler's option, which is what Skiles is used to from a point guard's mentality. But if used sometimes, in combination with a fast-break offense that ignites off of a defense forcing turnovers, against a defense that isn't sharp or doesn't rotate as well as it should, then I think it can be extremely useful.
See less See more
I don't think so. We move the ball a lot on offense already and I think Skiles is one of the better offensive minds in the game, I like his sets, so I don't want to see us do this. Obviously this has been a dissapointing year, but the one thing we can take heart in is our halfcourt offense. The Tim Floyd/Bill Cartwright years were vomit inducing in the half court, but now we move the ball, get good looks, and score at a pretty good clip. We need bigs.
I would just like to point out that while I can understand my previous post being edited, it got me "repped," twice, before it was deleted.

I know that I'm not the only one sick of having these "agendas" crammed down my throat.
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.