Honestly, what happened? | Page 3 | The Boneyard

Honestly, what happened?

I doubted Hurley in the first couple of years. Even in his pressers after the rock fights he spoke in the cliches of the players needing to be tougher, to 'want it more,' etc. I didn't see this type of offensive transition happening. It's been truly incredible
 
After the loss to New Mexico in the NCAAT Hurley decided we needed to focus and ramp up our offense. So he hired Luke Murray and recruited offensive talent.
Luke Murray was brought in after 20-21 season before the loss the New Mexico state
 
Question. Opposing teams have seen our offense for 2 full seasons now, what are the chances they figure out how to defend it?

That's the beauty of this offense. You can know what UConn is doing but defending it for 30 seconds almost always leads to opens shots. UConn would get the clock down to 5 seconds, make two more passes and get off a great shot with 0.5 seconds on the clock.
 
2 things happened.

1, one of the most stubborn coaches in college basketball admitted he needed to change his “we can win on defense alone” approach

2, he hired Luke Murray who is an offensive genius, probably the best offensive mind in college basketball. Honestly, I cannot believe that a team hasn’t hired him as a HC. I know running a program top to bottom is different than just being a recruiter and designing the offense, but damn we are lucky he is sticking around another season.
 
.-.
After the loss to New Mexico in the NCAAT Hurley decided we needed to focus and ramp up our offense. So he hired Luke Murray and recruited offensive talent.
It's not entirely in that order though.

We already had Karaban in the fold at that point, so Hurley had clearly identified the need to go more modern at the 4 position in contrast to a more traditional PF like Whaley.
 
Getting players in the program that can make a shot helped tremendously.
No doubt but that team that lost to New Mexico State had Hawkins, Cole, Martin and Polley who were all above average or better shooters. We just didn’t utilize them properly (Martin was actually a very very good 3 point shooter his senior year - 43% on over 3 attempts per game - and we ran nothing to get him open looks).
 
Yes, all of the above. Recruiting putting more emphasis on BBIQ and arrival of guys who were just as tough as old Hurley recruits, but higher BBIQ and more skilled. Hurley and Murray developing a new offense not once, but twice. First year of the revolution was more about Hawkins shooting off movement and setting up deep post touches and seals for Sanogo. 2nd year was building on all that, adding more, and codifying it into more of a system (creating terminology, etc.), and enhancing the plays to get more variations and secondary actions (cuts, rolls, penetration windows etc. on top of everything else.) And then yeah just getting the buy-in to make everything work, though that hasn't really been a problem throughout Hurley's tenure (so not really a recent change).
We forget that at the beginning of his tenure, Hurley had to devote basically his entire coaching to effort and toughness. Forget BBIQ, forget sophisticated plays, he had his hands full getting guys to give max effort all game.
 
With everything that has been said in these posts which I also agree with I think its important that UConn needs to do whatever they need to do to keep this coaching staff intact. I'm sure the addition of Murray has helped the offense immensely, but the chemistry between ALL the coaches is just as important and keeping them together should be a priority.
 
.-.
Adding shooting, we added Joey C, Newton, Alleyne, Karaban and let’s not forget Hawkins missed the tournament in 2022 that really hurt us.
 
No doubt but that team that lost to New Mexico State had Hawkins, Cole, Martin and Polley who were all above average or better shooters. We just didn’t utilize them properly (Martin was actually a very very good 3 point shooter his senior year - 43% on over 3 attempts per game - and we ran nothing to get him open looks).
The problem was we had so few shooters on the floor at a time that if we tried running plays for shooters, it was so obvious what we were doing that the best we got was contested Polley spot-up 3s, which were incredibly demoralizing when he missed.
 
Kittles lit us up at Gampel for about 37 or so, too.
Unfortunately I was at this game in 1995. It was the first week every UConn got ranked #1 in the country and it was such a big deal. Then Kittles lit up Ray Allen and the Huskies for 37 while Ray only had 11. Nova beat UConn 96-73.
 
UConn had the perfect blend of inside and outside play to dominate the last 2 years. When done through a movement and passing scheme, it is very tough to defend. Before the chips, there was a lot of perimeter passing with no purpose, and eventually iso ball with the clock running out. There was a noticeable change 2 years ago. So, I would say it's the mix of both Luke's new scheme and recruiting the right talent to fit this scheme.

I would argue last year's team was one of best, if not the best, in the modern era. They won't get recognized as such because they lost a few games, mainly due to key players injured. But, when healthy, they would beat even the Duke teams of the early 90s.
 
And for better or worse, he stayed loyal to some holdover and his early recruits which simply were not at the level needed. In retrospect, I think it was a good thing as it helped cement the kind of culture he wants here.
I'm sure he knew he was sacrificing something on the court to encourage guys like Polley and Whaley to stay as long as they wanted, to hold onto Brendan Adams (his first recruit) as long as he did, but it was a calculated move to build culture, which has paid off in the long run.

In fact, I'm not sure there has ever been a "short term pain, long term gain" intentional choice that has paid off as much as this one in the recent history of the sport.
 
I may be off on this (like entirely) - but it is my casual understanding that in broad terms Geno runs his own version of the Princeton offense and it has evolved even more over the years. Meanwhile, Europeans also evolved their own version of the Princeton offense and the men's side runs their version of the European-based evolved "Princeton offense" complete with analytics.

So they would look similar as they have the same root.
 
.-.
I may be off on this (like entirely) - but it is my casual understanding that in broad terms Geno runs his own version of the Princeton offense and it has evolved even more over the years. Meanwhile, Europeans also evolved their own version of the Princeton offense and the men's side runs their version of the European-based evolved "Princeton offense" complete with analytics.

So they would look similar as they have the same root.

The whole Chin series we run is adapted from the Princeton offense. It's kind of old school in a way. But the actual product really doesn't look like Princeton any more.
 
I've never believed in 'a good loss', but I think the New Mexico St loss is in retrospect the clearest example that 'a good loss' is a true concept. I always viewed the concept as a loss that removes player complacency, but in this case it completely revamped a coaching style and the desired talent being recruited. The pain of that loss is gone, and replaced by a 'thankyou'.
Fully agree but I have to add the most important part of the equation is the response to the loss is what makes the good loss possible.

As a NY Giants fan from the late 1960's I've said for decades that the best thing that happened to them in my lifetime was the fumble as that led them to hiring a football guy (George Young) to run the franchise and the clown show ended (until a bit more than a decade ago).

Dan Hurley recognizing that other methodologies could be incorporated into what he was doing and being willing to change his approach has paid dividends far beyond what most of us could have imagined.
 
Did members of our staff sudy Geno's offense while devising the offense we currently run? I will state without question, with what I know of our staff, they spent countless hours studying film, including Geno, including Pete Carrill, including European league play, including the Warriors from the past decade, the Knicks from the early 1970's and likely anything else the could have gotten their hands on.

What Geno runs (has run forever basically) is a slight variation of Bobby Knight's motion offense. What we currently run compares with that only in that it can also be categorized as a motion offense. The player movement, the screens, the pin downs, the ball movement all are different from anything I've seen in my lifetime (I've been watching this sport since the late 1960's). A massive part of what makes this offense so special is the off ball screens (pin downs) that most fans aren't aware of as prior to this there would be no reason to ever look for them. I cannot count how many times over the past two seasons where one of our players came open seemingly out of nowhere solely because od something away from the ball that nobody (including the opponent) would ever consider. This may be the most beautiful offense I've ever seen and I saw the Knicks when they had group of unselfish, future hall of fame players who could all handle the ball, pass, move, score as well as anyone in the game.
 
So Geno ball to an extreme works very well in the men's game. I agree.
You’re going to have to define what “geno ball” means to you. Best I can tell, what you’re pinning this on is the offense uses off-ball screens. Is that it?
 
Without reading through the rest of the comments, this is it.

And recruiting the players with the IQ and desire to share the ball.
It amazes me that he didn’t just improve but he draws comparisons to the Warriors and guys like LeBron compliment us. His substitutions are always spot on, makes incredible adjustments at half time, and has mostly not let the refs get his goat to the point where it impacts the game.
 
I’m not an X and O guy like many of you, but I remember in the early Hurley days, a lot of complaints about our offense and how we just ran a weave and high hedge endlessly. Now, anlmost overnight, we run the best offense in CBB.

Is it the players, is Hurley evolving, is Murray a mad offensive scientist, is it the cultural buy-in? Am I answering my own question by saying it’s all of the above?
Its 75% player and 25% coaching evolution
Even last years team always had one player who had trouble fitting into an offensive set
This years team had a an almost perfect mix to make any offense look good .
However in addition it had 5 players with size and high basketball IQ’s enabing us to put things in coaches only dream of running . A 7’2” generational player in the middle who touched the ball in almost every set is a nice a huge bonus.
From a team perspective that was the best offensive team in our history. They may not have been individually but as a team they resembled 2014 with a more versatile 5 and greater size.
 
.-.
Fully agree but I have to add the most important part of the equation is the response to the loss is what makes the good loss possible.

As a NY Giants fan from the late 1960's I've said for decades that the best thing that happened to them in my lifetime was the fumble as that led them to hiring a football guy (George Young) to run the franchise and the clown show ended (until a bit more than a decade ago).

Dan Hurley recognizing that other methodologies could be incorporated into what he was doing and being willing to change his approach has paid dividends far beyond what most of us could have imagined.
Being a UConn is great. It cleanses my palette of being a NY Giants fan and watching their front office ineptitude since the 2nd SB win over the Patriots (really it started before that SB.
 
Early on, Hurley expressed a desire to run a 4 out offense of shooters around a stud low post player.

He also famously decided that he wouldn't run off the players/recruits that he inherited.

It simply took time to assemble the roster and with the portal he was able to select proven college talent over undeveloped HS talent that was predicted to go to places like Duke, Kansas etc.

He beat the recruiting system by not relying on developing a never ending stream of 5 star recruits and hoping they all mesh together or pan out at all.

He also got a bit lucky in players like Sanogo, Hawkins, Jackson, Newton, Spencer, developing into NBA caliber players, but he gets credit for selecting them over others with more hype.

The euro offense thing was also an advantage vs. Older guys and system proteges stuck doing what they've always done, see Boeheim, Jim.

Cat is out of the bag on both concepts. Hungry coaches nationwide are studying the blueprint. The first to market advantage is closing. To sustain, Hurley needs to execute better and add a few wrinkles. He'll benefit by attracting more talented players but getting them to play his style will be more difficult.

To be the man, he had to beat the man, now he is the man.
 
Did members of our staff sudy Geno's offense while devising the offense we currently run? I will state without question, with what I know of our staff, they spent countless hours studying film, including Geno, including Pete Carrill, including European league play, including the Warriors from the past decade, the Knicks from the early 1970's and likely anything else the could have gotten their hands on.

What Geno runs (has run forever basically) is a slight variation of Bobby Knight's motion offense. What we currently run compares with that only in that it can also be categorized as a motion offense. The player movement, the screens, the pin downs, the ball movement all are different from anything I've seen in my lifetime (I've been watching this sport since the late 1960's). A massive part of what makes this offense so special is the off ball screens (pin downs) that most fans aren't aware of as prior to this there would be no reason to ever look for them. I cannot count how many times over the past two seasons where one of our players came open seemingly out of nowhere solely because od something away from the ball that nobody (including the opponent) would ever consider. This may be the most beautiful offense I've ever seen and I saw the Knicks when they had group of unselfish, future hall of fame players who could all handle the ball, pass, move, score as well as anyone in the game.
Much better (and more accurate) description, thank you.

A piece that I picked up in some of the post-championship breakdowns was that the offense was "just" a set of interconnected plays. So play 1 into play 2 into play 3 (each part having reads) and then if there is any time "freelance." It would look like a "motion offense" during the operation of those plays, but only because the shot clock ran out.

And as noted, these incorporated elements of different offensive systems.
 
Ball screens work when you have a guy who can beat the switch man one-on-one (i.e., Kemba and to a certain degree Tristen), and enough perimeter shooting to keep the D spread and distracted. Off-ball screens work when you have perimeter shooting but nobody really needs to be a major one-on-one threat. It's tough on the defense because they have to switch and/or scramble to stay connected even though they often can't see the ball. If they do look for it they lose sight of their man.

The key in both cases is having several perimeter threats. Just think back to Tyler Polley. Even though he had other deficiencies he was a good perimeter shooter, but on those teams almost the only one that had to be guarded at all times. Everyone else could be sloughed to help. He wasn't able to get his own shot, and wasn't good enough with the ball to be the handler working off a ball screen.

Hurley had to accomplish two things. Bring in better shooters (he did), and work the offense with multiple options, including ball screens, off-ball screens, back cuts, high-low, etc. That second part requires smart players who can read the D on the fly, and both the player with the ball and those off have to make the same reads. It's that part that stood out in watching the offense this year.
 
The problem was we had so few shooters on the floor at a time that if we tried running plays for shooters, it was so obvious what we were doing that the best we got was contested Polley spot-up 3s, which were incredibly demoralizing when he missed.
If I recall we did a lot of 2 bigs that year. So yes, it definitely limited our offensive capabilities. Although Whaley did hit like 3 threes in one game lol
 
.-.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,369
Messages
4,568,693
Members
10,472
Latest member
MyStore24


Top Bottom