Showing posts with label coach preheim. Show all posts
Showing posts with label coach preheim. Show all posts
Thursday, May 23, 2013
New Mexico Wide Set
I got this set from a New Mexico game a while back. I found it to be an interesting dribble hand-off action that results in a post entry.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Anatomy of a Timeout: Tip #4
As I have previously noted, I like to switch up defensive schemes after a timeout. I have found that most of the time this will bust up the offensive set that was designed by the opposing team. On the flip side, I feel that it is very important to have combination sets that will work against man or zone. Furthermore, it is important that you have a BLOB and a SLOB that will work against man and zone defense as well. Many times, you are able to make simple modifications to what you are already running to attack man or zone schemes. Like always, the key is to work on these situations during practice to better help your players understand the situation and what the correct adjustments are.
I have talked with other coaches who will simply have 2 plays called. If they see that the team is in a zone scheme, they will run the zone set. If they see that the defense is in a man scheme, they will run the man set.
So the big questions we have to ask ourselves are:
1. Do you want to be the type of coach who goes over 2 different plays during the timeout and then make the call from the bench once you see the scheme? Are both of these plays going to be from the same alignment so players don’t have to get into a different formation once you recognize the defensive scheme?
2. Are you going to run 1 set and review the adjustments, whether zone or man, in case the defense switches schemes?
I have talked with other coaches who will simply have 2 plays called. If they see that the team is in a zone scheme, they will run the zone set. If they see that the defense is in a man scheme, they will run the man set.
So the big questions we have to ask ourselves are:
1. Do you want to be the type of coach who goes over 2 different plays during the timeout and then make the call from the bench once you see the scheme? Are both of these plays going to be from the same alignment so players don’t have to get into a different formation once you recognize the defensive scheme?
2. Are you going to run 1 set and review the adjustments, whether zone or man, in case the defense switches schemes?
Monday, November 19, 2012
Coaching Principles: Seth Davis and Bill Russell
Here are some coaching principles from a Seth Davis and Bill Russell presentation. Something all coaches should keep in mind.
1. Love the game: Watch it, learn it and love it. Don’t think you know it all.
2. Know your team: When making adjustments, make adjustments your team can make. Know your strengths and limitations so you can set your team up for success.
3. Make rules reasonable: Your authority is established through proof not command. I’ve always said: the best use of power is not having to use it. If you make a rule make sure the punishment is clear: Red would fine a player $10 for being late to practice. Yelling is not a punishment, it takes a rules offense to a personal and negative level that hurts the whole team.
4. Loyalty is paramount: “I only ever played for the Celtics and I never would play for another team—they were loyal to me, and I was loyal to them”
5. Negotiation is key: Everything between a player and a coach is a negotiation. When you want a player to do something you want—you have to give them what they want. Negotiating so everyone wins is the goal.
6. Craftsmanship: Know what you need to do to get this done.
7. Winning: When I do my job and you do your job—we all win.
8. Own your decisions: When you make a mistake, when you fail to lead by example, when you do something wrong: own your decision. Accept personal responsibility, apologize and move forward. Be a model of positive decision making and turning a negative decision into a positive.
1. Love the game: Watch it, learn it and love it. Don’t think you know it all.
2. Know your team: When making adjustments, make adjustments your team can make. Know your strengths and limitations so you can set your team up for success.
3. Make rules reasonable: Your authority is established through proof not command. I’ve always said: the best use of power is not having to use it. If you make a rule make sure the punishment is clear: Red would fine a player $10 for being late to practice. Yelling is not a punishment, it takes a rules offense to a personal and negative level that hurts the whole team.
4. Loyalty is paramount: “I only ever played for the Celtics and I never would play for another team—they were loyal to me, and I was loyal to them”
5. Negotiation is key: Everything between a player and a coach is a negotiation. When you want a player to do something you want—you have to give them what they want. Negotiating so everyone wins is the goal.
6. Craftsmanship: Know what you need to do to get this done.
7. Winning: When I do my job and you do your job—we all win.
8. Own your decisions: When you make a mistake, when you fail to lead by example, when you do something wrong: own your decision. Accept personal responsibility, apologize and move forward. Be a model of positive decision making and turning a negative decision into a positive.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Competing with Less Talented Teams
Most coaches at some point in their careers will experience a team that is lacking in talent. This was my case a few years ago when I was coaching girls. We won 4 games over the course of 2 years. At practice, we did a lot of fundamental development focusing on passing, dribbling, footwork, shooting and ball toughness.
My thought at the time was that in order to keep ourselves in the game, we need to minimize the number of possessions that the other team would have and play really good defense. Looking back at this approach, especially the offensive side, I can see that this approach was not ideal. I could see it working had our players had a good base of fundamentals. However, it was a struggle for us to get ball reversals, find quality shot attempts and ultimately we had a large amount of turnovers each night and were struggling to score 30+ points. Regardless of how good our defense was, it is tough to win games if you are scoring 30-35 points.
Over the years, I have done some research, talked with numerous coaches and watched some videos on this topic. Granted, I came across many different philosophies that emphasized slowing down the game, but ultimately, my opinion has changed. If I could re-coach those 2 years with those exact same players, in a nut shell, my approach would be as followed:
1. We would look to do the bulk of our scoring out of our transition offense. We would spend a large portion of practice working on a sideline break that would also serve as our press break. As I noted above, we had a hard time scoring out of our half-court offense because of our fundamental ability, style of play and the athleticism of our opponents. Rarely would we get a quality shot that was not contested. Therefore, getting the ball up the floor as quickly as possible with the pass and attacking the rim in transition would have probably given us better quality shot attempts. It would have also given us a better chance of getting offensive rebounds and more free throw attempts, both of which we struggled to do in the half court set.
2. I would have also been more aggressive with our defense (full court and half court). I probably would have stayed with our match-up zone, but would have been more aggressive with trapping. I would also have extended our defense and played the game full court. Granted, we were going to get with some of our rotations, but we would also force a few more turnovers that would have led to higher quality shots that we were not getting in the half court set.
3. In both our transition offense and defense, I would have had to play more people in order to play that aggressive style for a full game. In reality, there was wasn’t much difference in ability from players 1-12. Not only would more kids have played, but I think kids like to play this style anyways, so we would have probably been a happier team regardless if we would have been winning or losing.
4. I would have continued to use a simple have court offense that emphasized attacking the basket with the dribble and with the pass regardless if we saw man or zone defense. I would have also reduced the number of sets and quick hitters.
5. Fundamentals would continue to be taught in practice. I would have just incorporated more multidimensional drills that incorporated combination skills in the transition game (being that is where most of our game would be played at).
I don’t know if we would have won any more games than we did those 2 years, but I know I would have enjoyed coaching more and the kids would have enjoyed playing more. In my opinion, even if we lost those same games, but were scoring 50 points rather than 30 and more kids played that were probably about the same ability level anyway, it probably would have been a better couple of years.
We are currently using this approach this year with our boy’s program. We have done a lot with statistical analysis and have found that the numbers (FT attempts, shooting percentage, turnover differential and points per possession) support this style of play for us. We have an athletic group which makes it even more enjoyable to coach and play.
My thought at the time was that in order to keep ourselves in the game, we need to minimize the number of possessions that the other team would have and play really good defense. Looking back at this approach, especially the offensive side, I can see that this approach was not ideal. I could see it working had our players had a good base of fundamentals. However, it was a struggle for us to get ball reversals, find quality shot attempts and ultimately we had a large amount of turnovers each night and were struggling to score 30+ points. Regardless of how good our defense was, it is tough to win games if you are scoring 30-35 points.
Over the years, I have done some research, talked with numerous coaches and watched some videos on this topic. Granted, I came across many different philosophies that emphasized slowing down the game, but ultimately, my opinion has changed. If I could re-coach those 2 years with those exact same players, in a nut shell, my approach would be as followed:
1. We would look to do the bulk of our scoring out of our transition offense. We would spend a large portion of practice working on a sideline break that would also serve as our press break. As I noted above, we had a hard time scoring out of our half-court offense because of our fundamental ability, style of play and the athleticism of our opponents. Rarely would we get a quality shot that was not contested. Therefore, getting the ball up the floor as quickly as possible with the pass and attacking the rim in transition would have probably given us better quality shot attempts. It would have also given us a better chance of getting offensive rebounds and more free throw attempts, both of which we struggled to do in the half court set.
2. I would have also been more aggressive with our defense (full court and half court). I probably would have stayed with our match-up zone, but would have been more aggressive with trapping. I would also have extended our defense and played the game full court. Granted, we were going to get with some of our rotations, but we would also force a few more turnovers that would have led to higher quality shots that we were not getting in the half court set.
3. In both our transition offense and defense, I would have had to play more people in order to play that aggressive style for a full game. In reality, there was wasn’t much difference in ability from players 1-12. Not only would more kids have played, but I think kids like to play this style anyways, so we would have probably been a happier team regardless if we would have been winning or losing.
4. I would have continued to use a simple have court offense that emphasized attacking the basket with the dribble and with the pass regardless if we saw man or zone defense. I would have also reduced the number of sets and quick hitters.
5. Fundamentals would continue to be taught in practice. I would have just incorporated more multidimensional drills that incorporated combination skills in the transition game (being that is where most of our game would be played at).
I don’t know if we would have won any more games than we did those 2 years, but I know I would have enjoyed coaching more and the kids would have enjoyed playing more. In my opinion, even if we lost those same games, but were scoring 50 points rather than 30 and more kids played that were probably about the same ability level anyway, it probably would have been a better couple of years.
We are currently using this approach this year with our boy’s program. We have done a lot with statistical analysis and have found that the numbers (FT attempts, shooting percentage, turnover differential and points per possession) support this style of play for us. We have an athletic group which makes it even more enjoyable to coach and play.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)