MtnWasp
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 790
There are a few coaches out there who run distinct systems consistently from year to year and exploit the distinctiveness of those schemes to create difficulties for the opposition. In comparison, most coaches run more standard schemes that they adapt to and feature the best talent that they have recruited.
In many ways, the boundaries between a systems coach and a star system coach can be blurry. Maybe fans can come up with examples of coaches who don't fit my distinctions.
But a clear way to make a distinction between the two approaches is that Star system coaches recruit the best talent that they can find and then adapt their schemes to feature that talent. Their systems are more labile as they adjust to the talent they have.
On the other hand, systems coaches recruit specifically for their schemes and they plug whomever comes in and the team looks very much the same from one season to the next.
The most extreme system I can think of off hand is the Bill Carmody Princeton system. On the other end of the spectrum and an example of an extreme system coach was the insane running game of Paul Westhead at Loyola Marymount in the late 80s early 90s. Nolan Richardson's "40 Minutes of Hell" in the 80s with Arkansas, Boeheim's Syracuse zone defense are good examples of the systems approach.
The most obvious example of a systems coach in the ACC is Tony Bennett at UVA. Bennett plays a slow down game on both ends and does not seem to emphasize recruiting blue chip talent to feature so much as to get players that fit the schemes that he runs, which looks the same every year. The players come and go but the look and results do not change too much.
On the other side, an example of a star system coach that is near and dear to our hearts is Bobby Cremins. Cremins made hay by recruiting the best talent possible and then just worked to feature the talent. Kenny Anderson didn't play like Mark Price, who didn't play like Stephon Marbury who didn't play like Travis Best, but it didn't matter. Cremins employed very basic concepts that fed the talent.
So, that is another distinction between systems coaches and star system coaches. For a system coach, it is the scheme that, in large measure, makes the players look good, while for the star system teams, it is the talent that is unburdened by excessive structure and free to create via a relatively simple system of srceens and isolations.
Inconsistency from season to season is becoming a trademark of the star system coaches as lack of player continuity seems to make consistent results from yar to year problematic. I think we saw this after 1990 for Bobby Cremins.
Most coaches fall in between the extremes. Rick Pitino and Mark few are examples of coaches who have strong systems but also feature star players. Another interesting case is Mike Krzyzewski. He built a program based on system, especially on defense, but then transitioned to emphasizing a star system on the offensive end. Similarly, Roy Williams came out of the Dean Smith tree, which had a strong system approach, but then, despite still emphasizing post play, got away from the Smith's rigid system and tried to go the star route, and the consistency that Smith achieved escaped Williams at the end.
Then there are coaches that are systems coaches on one end of the floor and a star system coaches on the other. The Tom Izzo line and our own Brian Gregory match this category. Brian Gregory recruited to a very specific and well designed defensive system, always favoring wide-bodied post players who could really rebound. But, Gregory had no system to speak of on the offensive end.
Paul Hewitt is an interesting case. He was from the start a star player coach but he ran a good defensive system early but then his schemes became progressively frayed after 2005 even with the increased number of star players he recruited in the second half of his GT tenure.
In short then, A system coach's approach to winning is to employ schematic systems that in themselves create challenges for the opposition and that the recruiting emphasis is to find players that can efficiently execute the schemes. While the Star system coaches try to recruit players who have ability to produce efficiently regardless of scheme and to employ relatively simple schemes that free those players to produce.
The majority of media and fans identify better with the star system, perhaps because they are imprinted on the Michael Jordan model of winning. They place a lot of weight on recruiting star power and it seems to transcend scheme. By definition, system coaches try to burden the opposition with complex schemes that are not as easy to appreciate by spectators.
It is apparent to me that the media and some fans are slow to appreciate that Pastner is a systems coach. It seems easy to me to appreciate that we are a systems program on the defensive end with our complicated amoeba zone defense. But we are also a system team on the offensive end. When we had Lammers, our Princeton foundations were easy to appreciate. But Banks was not well suited to what we ran with Lammers. Originally, Pastner gave lip service to going "positionless" but we didn't have the personnel for that. That may be less of an issue now.
However, Pastner mentioned in his pre-season presser that we are looking to run the offense through our post players at the elbow, which is what we did with Lammers and to a certain extent with Wright. Now, with a number of rangy face-up players, we may be closer to seeing an offensive scheme closer to what Pastner has envisioned for GT.
I think this is the reason we will, again, out-perfrom the preseason ACC forecasts. The media are looking for stars and are underestimating the schemes and the ability of the players to execute them. We'll see.
In many ways, the boundaries between a systems coach and a star system coach can be blurry. Maybe fans can come up with examples of coaches who don't fit my distinctions.
But a clear way to make a distinction between the two approaches is that Star system coaches recruit the best talent that they can find and then adapt their schemes to feature that talent. Their systems are more labile as they adjust to the talent they have.
On the other hand, systems coaches recruit specifically for their schemes and they plug whomever comes in and the team looks very much the same from one season to the next.
The most extreme system I can think of off hand is the Bill Carmody Princeton system. On the other end of the spectrum and an example of an extreme system coach was the insane running game of Paul Westhead at Loyola Marymount in the late 80s early 90s. Nolan Richardson's "40 Minutes of Hell" in the 80s with Arkansas, Boeheim's Syracuse zone defense are good examples of the systems approach.
The most obvious example of a systems coach in the ACC is Tony Bennett at UVA. Bennett plays a slow down game on both ends and does not seem to emphasize recruiting blue chip talent to feature so much as to get players that fit the schemes that he runs, which looks the same every year. The players come and go but the look and results do not change too much.
On the other side, an example of a star system coach that is near and dear to our hearts is Bobby Cremins. Cremins made hay by recruiting the best talent possible and then just worked to feature the talent. Kenny Anderson didn't play like Mark Price, who didn't play like Stephon Marbury who didn't play like Travis Best, but it didn't matter. Cremins employed very basic concepts that fed the talent.
So, that is another distinction between systems coaches and star system coaches. For a system coach, it is the scheme that, in large measure, makes the players look good, while for the star system teams, it is the talent that is unburdened by excessive structure and free to create via a relatively simple system of srceens and isolations.
Inconsistency from season to season is becoming a trademark of the star system coaches as lack of player continuity seems to make consistent results from yar to year problematic. I think we saw this after 1990 for Bobby Cremins.
Most coaches fall in between the extremes. Rick Pitino and Mark few are examples of coaches who have strong systems but also feature star players. Another interesting case is Mike Krzyzewski. He built a program based on system, especially on defense, but then transitioned to emphasizing a star system on the offensive end. Similarly, Roy Williams came out of the Dean Smith tree, which had a strong system approach, but then, despite still emphasizing post play, got away from the Smith's rigid system and tried to go the star route, and the consistency that Smith achieved escaped Williams at the end.
Then there are coaches that are systems coaches on one end of the floor and a star system coaches on the other. The Tom Izzo line and our own Brian Gregory match this category. Brian Gregory recruited to a very specific and well designed defensive system, always favoring wide-bodied post players who could really rebound. But, Gregory had no system to speak of on the offensive end.
Paul Hewitt is an interesting case. He was from the start a star player coach but he ran a good defensive system early but then his schemes became progressively frayed after 2005 even with the increased number of star players he recruited in the second half of his GT tenure.
In short then, A system coach's approach to winning is to employ schematic systems that in themselves create challenges for the opposition and that the recruiting emphasis is to find players that can efficiently execute the schemes. While the Star system coaches try to recruit players who have ability to produce efficiently regardless of scheme and to employ relatively simple schemes that free those players to produce.
The majority of media and fans identify better with the star system, perhaps because they are imprinted on the Michael Jordan model of winning. They place a lot of weight on recruiting star power and it seems to transcend scheme. By definition, system coaches try to burden the opposition with complex schemes that are not as easy to appreciate by spectators.
It is apparent to me that the media and some fans are slow to appreciate that Pastner is a systems coach. It seems easy to me to appreciate that we are a systems program on the defensive end with our complicated amoeba zone defense. But we are also a system team on the offensive end. When we had Lammers, our Princeton foundations were easy to appreciate. But Banks was not well suited to what we ran with Lammers. Originally, Pastner gave lip service to going "positionless" but we didn't have the personnel for that. That may be less of an issue now.
However, Pastner mentioned in his pre-season presser that we are looking to run the offense through our post players at the elbow, which is what we did with Lammers and to a certain extent with Wright. Now, with a number of rangy face-up players, we may be closer to seeing an offensive scheme closer to what Pastner has envisioned for GT.
I think this is the reason we will, again, out-perfrom the preseason ACC forecasts. The media are looking for stars and are underestimating the schemes and the ability of the players to execute them. We'll see.
