Define an aggressive offense....

[Dakota Girl]

I have seen the phrase, "Purdue does not run an aggressive offense" over the last couple months pop up in several threads.
I am curious what this board considers aggressive offense to be.

My definition would be consistent ball penetration into the paint either via the dribble or the pass. From that point it is simply getting the ball to the player with the best shot, be that the player with the ball, a cutter, or a perimeter shooter. There are lots of ways to do this, set plays, motion, ball screen, drive & kick, future NBA hall of fame point guard.
I consider a passive offense to be one which does not attempt to get inside but instead moves on the perimeter almost exclusively.
I do not typically count a fast break as offense as it is initiated and set up by aggressive defense but I can see an argument for secondary breaks and running on rebounds as transition offense which is certainly aggressive.
Just trying to start a conversation about basketball

 

[punaj]

My guess is people on here that say that would think an offense that cuts and drives to the hoop more than we typically do is an aggressive offense. I remember a few years back RJ doing that *all the time* and that sure wasn't very fun to watch, IMO.

 

[BBG]

I would rather be efficient than aggressive. An aggressive offense does no good if it isn't efficient.

 

[mvboiler]

I have seen the phrase, "Purdue does not run an aggressive offense" over the last couple months pop up in several threads.
I am curious what this board considers aggressive offense to be.

My definition would be consistent ball penetration into the paint either via the dribble or the pass. From that point it is simply getting the ball to the player with the best shot, be that the player with the ball, a cutter, or a perimeter shooter. There are lots of ways to do this, set plays, motion, ball screen, drive & kick, future NBA hall of fame point guard.
I consider a passive offense to be one which does not attempt to get inside but instead moves on the perimeter almost exclusively.
I do not typically count a fast break as offense as it is initiated and set up by aggressive defense but I can see an argument for secondary breaks and running on rebounds as transition offense which is certainly aggressive.
Just trying to start a conversation about basketball

Great question. I would classify an aggressive offense as high shot volume offense. Allow your players to generate the action more so than the sets. Early shot clock shots are common. Your end of game strategy is to continue to push and score.

 

[SIBoiler2]

My interpretation of those experts that want a more aggressive offense is that they would be happier running IU's score at will offense along with their porous defense because I now understand from studying said experts that it is impossible to recruit a stud if you play D.

 

[mathboy]

Great question. I would classify an aggressive offense as high shot volume offense. Allow your players to generate the action more so than the sets. Early shot clock shots are common. Your end of game strategy is to continue to push and score.

You understand that the "Motion offense" is geared to do exactly what you stated, right? It generates lots of movement and can allow free lancing by the players if they get open. On the other hand, a high shot volume without hitting your shots is a recipe for losing. Got to have more depth to the game than just saying "aggressive".

 

[mvboiler]

You understand that the "Motion offense" is geared to do exactly what you stated, right? It generates lots of movement and can allow free lancing by the players if they get open. On the other hand, a high shot volume without hitting your shots is a recipe for losing. Got to have more depth to the game than just saying "aggressive".

I never said a motion offense couldn't be aggressive. However, our motion is not run with the players we have to be aggressive. Painter would say as much himself. He wants to play through the post which could mean multiple feeds per possession. Nothing wrong with that if it works as it can generate high offensive efficiency as has been stated on here time and time again. But high offensive efficiency is not by itself a recipe for success. Nor is an aggressive offense.

I also never said I wanted to run an aggressive offense. I think most people would quantify IU as much more aggressive - works for them but it's not the only answer. The challenge Matt has in convincing top guards to play our style vs. that style.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

I never said a motion offense couldn't be aggressive. However, our motion is not run with the players we have to be aggressive. Painter would say as much himself. He wants to play through the post which could mean multiple feeds per possession. Nothing wrong with that if it works as it can generate high offensive efficiency as has been stated on here time and time again. But high offensive efficiency is not by itself a recipe for success. Nor is an aggressive offense.

I also never said I wanted to run an aggressive offense. I think most people would quantify IU as much more aggressive - works for them but it's not the only answer. The challenge Matt has in convincing top guards to play our style vs. that style.

Aside from the obvious disclaimer that you also need to play defense, I'd argue that maximizing offensive efficiency (i.e. points per possession) is a direct measure of offensive success.

 

[Bigohh]

Aside from the obvious disclaimer that you also need to play defense, I'd argue that maximizing offensive efficiency (i.e. points per possession) is a direct measure of offensive success.

I agree with you. In watching the NBA summer league and seeing AJ trying to post up and then one of his teammates jacking one up just to try to prove that he can hit a jump shot is maybe the epitome of the so called aggressive offense (i.e. jacking the first shot to come along good or bad). Obviously we are familiar with the opposite ends of that theory. The best would likely be Curry or his partner Klay whereas the other end example would be Kendall. Seems to me that the most efficient offense is one that runs it through the most efficient offensive player and that can be about anyone depending on the opponents defense.
BTW I would think that UM runs an aggressive offense because they have had a bunch of players who all think they are the best player on the team. Sometimes it works out ok if these players are efficient and sometimes it does not when they are cold or have a defender on them who is exceptional and has well scouted them.
BTW 2.0 word indirectly from Spike is that Purdue practices are a lot tougher than UM practices.

 

[purdue4sure]

I have seen the phrase, "Purdue does not run an aggressive offense" over the last couple months pop up in several threads.
I am curious what this board considers aggressive offense to be.

My definition would be consistent ball penetration into the paint either via the dribble or the pass. From that point it is simply getting the ball to the player with the best shot, be that the player with the ball, a cutter, or a perimeter shooter. There are lots of ways to do this, set plays, motion, ball screen, drive & kick, future NBA hall of fame point guard.
I consider a passive offense to be one which does not attempt to get inside but instead moves on the perimeter almost exclusively.
I do not typically count a fast break as offense as it is initiated and set up by aggressive defense but I can see an argument for secondary breaks and running on rebounds as transition offense which is certainly aggressive.
Just trying to start a conversation about basketball

Apparently an aggressive offense is one where players are allowed to show their sauce. Been there.

 

[tjreese]

I have seen the phrase, "Purdue does not run an aggressive offense" over the last couple months pop up in several threads.
I am curious what this board considers aggressive offense to be.

My definition would be consistent ball penetration into the paint either via the dribble or the pass. From that point it is simply getting the ball to the player with the best shot, be that the player with the ball, a cutter, or a perimeter shooter. There are lots of ways to do this, set plays, motion, ball screen, drive & kick, future NBA hall of fame point guard.
I consider a passive offense to be one which does not attempt to get inside but instead moves on the perimeter almost exclusively.
I do not typically count a fast break as offense as it is initiated and set up by aggressive defense but I can see an argument for secondary breaks and running on rebounds as transition offense which is certainly aggressive.
Just trying to start a conversation about basketball

kinda like asking what makes a girl pretty? $.02
I tend to think along the lines of power or finesse offense. However, when I think of an "aggressive offense" I think of an offense that is continually probing the D to score. No matter what you do, if you do not have the players it may be aggressive and I suppose it could be offensive as well I think an aggressive offense must get the ball up the court in a quick manner to start the offensive pressure. The rule changes have promoted a more aggressive offensive perimeter player the last couple of years. I don't equate offensive aggression as either good or bad on the whole, but certainly a lean to good. When you force things and exert your will, you are being aggressive and so Purdue's post play could be considered aggressive even though it is a less effective aggression in comparison to the perimeter play since the rule changes. When you do not force play, but read the D and take what is given I would not consider that aggressive, but could very well be smart. I think constant pressure to score is aggressive. In basketball, almost all play is with two or three players at a time. The others are clearing or waiting to become involved after a dribble or pass, but at a given second...basketball is mostly two or three players at a given second. Now about what makes a girl pretty...

 

[Dakota Girl]

kinda like asking what makes a girl pretty? $.02
I tend to think along the lines of power or finesse offense. However, when I think of an "aggressive offense" I think of an offense that is continually probing the D to score. No matter what you do, if you do not have the players it may be aggressive and I suppose it could be offensive as well I think an aggressive offense must get the ball up the court in a quick manner to start the offensive pressure. The rule changes have promoted a more aggressive offensive perimeter player the last couple of years. I don't equate offensive aggression as either good or bad on the whole, but certainly a lean to good. When you force things and exert your will, you are being aggressive and so Purdue's post play could be considered aggressive even though it is a less effective aggression in comparison to the perimeter play since the rule changes. When you do not force play, but read the D and take what is given I would not consider that aggressive, but could very well be smart. I think constant pressure to score is aggressive. In basketball, almost all play is with two or three players at a time. The others are clearing or waiting to become involved after a dribble or pass, but at a given second...basketball is mostly two or three players at a given second. Now about what makes a girl pretty...

I expected the question to generate many different answers much like your question about what makes a girl pretty. I am not disappointed. In the end a team can be aggressive from almost any "offense" because they are all designed to score points. In my mind, the key is to not confuse patience with pacivity nor to assume that a quick shot is an aggressive offensive play. I consider the baby boilers offense to be an excellent example of patience and aggressiveness. They moved the ball and themselves, set screens, made smart cuts, dribble penetrated, got to the rim, dished, and had mid range game. They also ran a very strong transition offense off of rebounds.

 

[BuilderBob6]

Your end of game strategy is to continue to push and score.

I always smile when I read these comments.
To be clear, I believe that you have to be aggressive against a press of any kind, at least to get it across halfcourt. But many have selective memories.......those of a 2 on 1 alley oop that shake the backboard or a pull up three that brings the house down. They forget about the missed shot or bad pass that leads to a 4 on 3 the other way..........which actually happens more than we like to admit. "End of game strategy" can mean lots of different scenarios but would you agree that no matter what the score the idea is to value possessions and get a good shot? If you are ahead and being pressed are you not playing right into the opponents hands?

Teams that "continue to push and score" at the end of tight games typically play that style of ball the whole game AND have the players to do it. We don't play that style but we very well could IF we have that kind of player. Do we have great athletes, point guards with superior handles, players that want the ball in their hands at crunch time, athletic 5s who run the floor? If you're honest your answer is no. Who on last years team would you trust "to push and score"? The only athlete we have with enough skills would be Vince.........and he did his share of disappearing as well as failing at the end of games.

Painter plays the game with the players he has. He has shown he will change the offense to fit his players and I believe if he can start recruiting more basketball players who are also athletes you will see him adjust his offense once again.........but I don't ever see him being a coach who doesn't value the ball and demand good shots.

 

[sk.]

I have seen the phrase, "Purdue does not run an aggressive offense" over the last couple months pop up in several threads.
I am curious what this board considers aggressive offense to be.

My definition would be consistent ball penetration into the paint either via the dribble or the pass. From that point it is simply getting the ball to the player with the best shot, be that the player with the ball, a cutter, or a perimeter shooter. There are lots of ways to do this, set plays, motion, ball screen, drive & kick, future NBA hall of fame point guard.
I consider a passive offense to be one which does not attempt to get inside but instead moves on the perimeter almost exclusively.
I do not typically count a fast break as offense as it is initiated and set up by aggressive defense but I can see an argument for secondary breaks and running on rebounds as transition offense which is certainly aggressive.
Just trying to start a conversation about basketball

I consider an "aggressive offense" nothing more that a catch phrase that is trying to be used in negative recruiting. Some people on GBI are getting sucked in and buying the rhetoric and then want to know what is wrong with Painter? Why doesn't he run an aggressive offense. I call BS to all of this. A previous post mentioned running an efficient offense. That I agree. Controlled attack, minimize turn overs.

 

[PU pit bull]

 

[mvboiler]

I always smile when I read these comments.
To be clear, I believe that you have to be aggressive against a press of any kind, at least to get it across halfcourt. But many have selective memories.......those of a 2 on 1 alley oop that shake the backboard or a pull up three that brings the house down. They forget about the missed shot or bad pass that leads to a 4 on 3 the other way..........which actually happens more than we like to admit. "End of game strategy" can mean lots of different scenarios but would you agree that no matter what the score the idea is to value possessions and get a good shot? If you are ahead and being pressed are you not playing right into the opponents hands?

Teams that "continue to push and score" at the end of tight games typically play that style of ball the whole game AND have the players to do it. We don't play that style but we very well could IF we have that kind of player. Do we have great athletes, point guards with superior handles, players that want the ball in their hands at crunch time, athletic 5s who run the floor? If you're honest your answer is no. Who on last years team would you trust "to push and score"? The only athlete we have with enough skills would be Vince.........and he did his share of disappearing as well as failing at the end of games.

Painter plays the game with the players he has. He has shown he will change the offense to fit his players and I believe if he can start recruiting more basketball players who are also athletes you will see him adjust his offense once again.........but I don't ever see him being a coach who doesn't value the ball and demand good shots.

I don't disagree with anything in this post. We don't have the roster to play that way and it wouldn't be smart of Painter to try. I've never lobbied for us to play more aggressive for the sake of it. I would like to see us not curl up in a ball in tight games as much as we do, but I don't think k playing an aggressive style is all game is necessarily the answer as much as situational awareness and confidence. I personally do think recruits see our style as boring, but that's more of a perception issue than anything. That might be more on Purdue as a brand than Painter as a coach.

 

[FirstDownB]

Aggressive: Playing fast but not out of control. That is a fine line, hard for most 18 year olds to grasp. Probe the defense with both the dribble and the pass, move the ball quickly, make the defense stop the ball. Pursue some high risk/reward type plays.
Note: Requires excellent ball handlers. As others have mentioned this is an area that has been lacking. Also IMO requires players who play 'loose' vs. 'tight', which is hard to define but you know it when you see it.
I don't think being aggressive is any kind of solution in and of itself, but there were certainly times last season where we needed more of it.

 

[GemstateBoiler]

Wouldn't it be funny if the ball said BTFU

 

[BuilderBob6]

I don't disagree with anything in this post. We don't have the roster to play that way and it wouldn't be smart of Painter to try. I've never lobbied for us to play more aggressive for the sake of it. I would like to see us not curl up in a ball in tight games as much as we do, but I don't think k playing an aggressive style is all game is necessarily the answer as much as situational awareness and confidence. I personally do think recruits see our style as boring, but that's more of a perception issue than anything. That might be more on Purdue as a brand than Painter as a coach.

Well said. There were many discussions during the year about why we struggled in tight games, with the press, and closing out games. There is much blame to go around but I think you hit on something. Situational awareness is certainly important but I think confidence is the key. We had too many players that were simply not comfortable in those situations and I don't think any amount of practice will overcome that. You need to have the confidence in yourself and your offensive skills to be aggressively smart in those situations..........think we were lacking there.

 

[mathboy]

I used to love it when teams thought they could blitz Drew Brees. I used to laugh out loud when I saw a line backer join the rush because I knew that Drew would make them pay. I want our basketball team to develop a similar reputation when people attempt to press us. "Don't press Purdue because they will jam it down your throat". We don't have it yet, but we need to get there. That is the only type of aggressive offense I want to see on any Purdue court.

That stuff I see a few other teams play, where the first player past the 10 second line whips up a shot is worthless basketball. Go to the co-rec if you want to see that junk. It is not "aggressive basketball" in my book. It is just unorganized and weak.

 

[tjreese]

Well said. There were many discussions during the year about why we struggled in tight games, with the press, and closing out games. There is much blame to go around but I think you hit on something. Situational awareness is certainly important but I think confidence is the key. We had too many players that were simply not comfortable in those situations and I don't think any amount of practice will overcome that. You need to have the confidence in yourself and your offensive skills to be aggressively smart in those situations..........think we were lacking there.

since the last game in a few conversations I stated that two guys key to teh recent success (Davis/Hammons) spent the formative years losing some close games. Once that monkey gets on your back it seems harder to shake than you would think. Ronnie with all the problems made pressing Purdue a non issue as far as turning it over, but an issue sometimes with a quick shot. Purdue will be fine. Confidence is huge as well as the physical attributes to make it happen. All the players are longer and quicker than in high school and sometimes those 5 quarterbacks (since we recognize it is a learning process for them) need experience. Purdue will make the transition and then we will be concerned that Purdue doesn't have a solid low post player that likes his back to the basket...

 

[nagemj02]

The way that spacing is initially set up or created in the halfcourt can also be a factor in how aggressive an offense can be (i.e. it creates some iso at times but is still team-oriented at its core). Of course, the better the players are (talent and skill) and the better they are for that style and spacing, the better that type of offense can be.

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

Interesting discussion.

I would tend to use the term "assertive," but I think "aggressive" works too....it's putting pressure on the defense in a number of ways.....not just with dribble penetration (though that is one of the key facets).....forcing the defense to defend in ways to which it's not accustomed or equipped. That could be inside/outside.......outside/inside.......drive/dish........slash/crash.......three-point barrage. Essentially, you're trying to stay one/two steps ahead of the defense to dictate pace (which doesn't always have to be up tempo) and get the better percentage shot (which sometimes might be from long-range).

Obviously, this is more efficiently orchestrated with a skilled/talented point guard, but all five players have a role.....they need to know their respective roles, and you do need a leader (usually the PG).

To me, one of the best examples (perhaps the "quintessential" example) is......sorry TC to borrow from the NBA of the Assertive Offense is the Los Angeles Lakers of the 80's. Yes, they had the tag of "Showtime," but if you delve more deeply into what they did......you'd perhaps see more than what the networks used to get viewers. In the early part of the decade, Abdul-Jabbar was still a major force and the offense still went through him, and Earvin "Magic" Johnson recognized that. The defenses had to try and focus on Jabbar......leaving Wilkes, Johnson, and Norm Nixon (among others) to have opportunities. They were able to have transition scores......(partly with defense/traps, but often just with handling the defensive boards) and had enough other weapons to make other teams pay......Bob McAdoo......Michael Cooper. Then......James Worthy and Michael Thompson.....and during the middle of the decade Magic Johnson took more of the overall lead of the team and the offense.

What also made things work that people sometimes forget is that when entering the league, both Magic Johnson and James Worthy (both all Americans and NCAA superstars in their own right) had little to none of an outside game......yet they developed into very proficient outside shooters by the time they left, which was probably the difference in a couple of championship seasons.

Obviously, it helps when a team has multiple stars (probably three of the all-timers.....and two arguably in the top 5 of all-time), but the strategy is the same......just they could do it consistently and at the highest of levels.

JMO

 

[tjreese]

The way that spacing is initially set up or created in the halfcourt can also be a factor in how aggressive an offense can be (i.e. it creates some iso at times but is still team-oriented at its core). Of course, the better the players are (talent and skill) and the better they are for that style and spacing, the better that type of offense can be.

The offensive team chooses the players to be on the court with certain skill sets that the coach thinks may provide the hardest team to defend. The defensive coach decides how he wants to play that team with his or her players. The defensive coach may defend all over the court or in selected areas of the court..a function of his personnel in comparison to how he views the other teams players. naturally, as you said or implied a "balanced" team that is skillful is harder to defend and may make the defensive coach defend more of the court than a less balanced, less skillful team.

Still, you could have a GREAT team, balanced and very skillful and the defensive coach may not care about your spacing and roll the die that his or her only way of beating you is to give up the perimeter and not defend it or not spread out and hope this is one of those days. I'm just trying to say that the defense has a choice in how to defend and a teams ability to create spacing may still not be an issue depending on what the other team's chances are if they are that weak. all that said...spacing capability is sought by all coaches...

 

[GemstateBoiler]

Interesting discussion.

I would tend to use the term "assertive," but I think "aggressive" works too....it's putting pressure on the defense in a number of ways.....not just with dribble penetration (though that is one of the key facets).....forcing the defense to defend in ways to which it's not accustomed or equipped. That could be inside/outside.......outside/inside.......drive/dish........slash/crash.......three-point barrage. Essentially, you're trying to stay one/two steps ahead of the defense to dictate pace (which doesn't always have to be up tempo) and get the better percentage shot (which sometimes might be from long-range).

Obviously, this is more efficiently orchestrated with a skilled/talented point guard, but all five players have a role.....they need to know their respective roles, and you do need a leader (usually the PG).

To me, one of the best examples (perhaps the "quintessential" example) is......sorry TC to borrow from the NBA of the Assertive Offense is the Los Angeles Lakers of the 80's. Yes, they had the tag of "Showtime," but if you delve more deeply into what they did......you'd perhaps see more than what the networks used to get viewers. In the early part of the decade, Abdul-Jabbar was still a major force and the offense still went through him, and Earvin "Magic" Johnson recognized that. The defenses had to try and focus on Jabbar......leaving Wilkes, Johnson, and Norm Nixon (among others) to have opportunities. They were able to have transition scores......(partly with defense/traps, but often just with handling the defensive boards) and had enough other weapons to make other teams pay......Bob McAdoo......Michael Cooper. Then......James Worthy and Michael Thompson.....and during the middle of the decade Magic Johnson took more of the overall lead of the team and the offense.

What also made things work that people sometimes forget is that when entering the league, both Magic Johnson and James Worthy (both all Americans and NCAA superstars in their own right) had little to none of an outside game......yet they developed into very proficient outside shooters by the time they left, which was probably the difference in a couple of championship seasons.

Obviously, it helps when a team has multiple stars (probably three of the all-timers.....and two arguably in the top 5 of all-time), but the strategy is the same......just they could do it consistently and at the highest of levels.

JMO

On Showtime next month.

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

On Showtime next month.

"I’m sorry son, but you must have me confused with someone else. My name is Roger Murdock. I’m the co-pilot.

Hey, Joey.......you ever been in a cockpit before?"

 

[GemstateBoiler]

"I’m sorry son, but you must have me confused with someone else. My name is Roger Murdock. I’m the co-pilot.

Hey, Joey.......you ever been in a cockpit before?"

Classic.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

The offensive team chooses the players to be on the court with certain skill sets that the coach thinks may provide the hardest team to defend. The defensive coach decides how he wants to play that team with his or her players. The defensive coach may defend all over the court or in selected areas of the court..a function of his personnel in comparison to how he views the other teams players. naturally, as you said or implied a "balanced" team that is skillful is harder to defend and may make the defensive coach defend more of the court than a less balanced, less skillful team.

Still, you could have a GREAT team, balanced and very skillful and the defensive coach may not care about your spacing and roll the die that his or her only way of beating you is to give up the perimeter and not defend it or not spread out and hope this is one of those days. I'm just trying to say that the defense has a choice in how to defend and a teams ability to create spacing may still not be an issue depending on what the other team's chances are if they are that weak. all that said...spacing capability is sought by all coaches...

I agree. Spacing is important regardless of whether coaching philosophy emphasizes aggressiveness or patience.