Smesko proposal

[Phil]

While discussing his reactions to the Ackerman White Paper proposals in a Swish Appeal article , Karl Smesko, the head coach at FGCU, had some suggestions of his own.

One of his suggestions can fairly be described as "bold".

He proposes to "eliminate the ball screen".

He argues: "Eliminating the ball screen should lead to more offensive player movement and more offensive ball movement. Each of these leads to more spectator friendly game"

I confess my initial reaction was "you've got to be kidding". He isn't. I thought some of the basketball savvy readers might have some useful opinions.

 

[Icebear]

I want to understand how he think this leads to more offensive movement when the purpose of the screen is to free the player of the defender so that they can move or execute a shot.

 

[meyers7]

That would seem to make it much easier to defend.....less offense.

 

[DavidinNaples]

FGCU is located next to Naples and I've seen a few games... IMO Smesko and FGCU don't use ball screens much and therefor he sees eliminating them as beneficial. FGCU has no centers on the roster and are very undersized. Seven players under 5'9. Their tallest players are 6'1 and 6'3, but the taller one is a guard. He recruits 3 pt shooters and last year 50% of their shots were from 3 pt range. (974 taken, 32.8% made) He had 11 guards on the roster last year. Offensively, they pass, pass and pass until a 3 is open, then shoot. His undersized guards are easy to "peal off" w/ screens, so I guess he would prefer eliminating them.... That is the best reason I can come up with for this silly proposal.

 

[HGN]

I guess if he can get someone to buy-in to that thinking , more power to him. With a roster with no player taller than 6'3 , he obviously is looking to outscore his opponents, Not beat them on the boards. Anything to help scoring benefits FGCU.

 

[Phil]

He had 11 guards on the roster last year.

They added a forward as a frosh, but they still have eleven guards, so your point is well taken.

 

[CL82]

My daughter had a coach (former ND player) who hated ball screens because it eliminates an offensive player. She wanted players to beat their man or pass (or shoot.) That kind of supports what he's saying. I don't agree, but I get where he's coming from.

 

[Vowelguy]

With a roster with no player taller than 6'3 ,

As an aside ...

The posts in this thread are suggesting that a team with "only" a 6'3" player is a small team. Is that really true?

Sure, most of the top teams have someone 6'4" or 6'5", but not all of them do. (Nor did UConn 2002, btw.) And it seems, in just a casual observation by me, that many of the other teams have only a 6'1" or 6'2" front line.

Just curious.

 

[DavidinNaples]

As an aside ...

The posts in this thread are suggesting that a team with "only" a 6'3" player is a small team. Is that really true?

Sure, most of the top teams have someone 6'4" or 6'5", but not all of them do. (Nor did UConn 2002, btw.) And it seems, in just a casual observation by me, that many of the other teams have only a 6'1" or 6'2" front line.

Just curious.

vowel...I believe the 6"3 girl red-shirted last season, leaving a 6"1 forward as tallest player. Faris was 5'11 and certainly played like 6'3, so I get your point. Oddly, leading rebounders were 5'10 and 5'7... When I saw FGCU play last season they looked small and "played smaller".... not physical at all, much more run and gun...hey, it works for them...

 

[Fightin Choke]

My daughter had a coach (former ND player) who hated ball screens because it eliminates on offensive player. She wanted players to beat their man or pass (or shoot.) That kind of supports what he's saying. I don't agree, but I get where he's coming from.

How does it eliminate an offensive player? The dribbler can still drive or shoot, the screener can still roll to the basket or step back for a pass, and the perimeter players will get open if their defender helps on the dribbler or screener.

Seems to me the best reason for a coach to avoid using a ball screen offense is because it doesn't result in good offensive ball movement. If a player came from a high school system that utilized ball screens extensively, the players would have less experience moving without the ball. But college is the last basketball stop for most women, so a lot of coaches use it because it's effective. But I personally prefer the beauty of a motion offense.

 

[Icebear]

A motion offense does not preclude the use of ball screens.

For those not understanding the various screens including the Ball Screen: http://www.breakthroughbasketball.com/articles/basic-basketball-screens.html

 

[Fightin Choke]

A motion offense does not preclude the use of ball screens.

I guess I was thinking of the pick and roll, which is probably the predominant ball screen offense.

 

[Icebear]

UCONN runs both high Ball Screens and pick and rolls within its Motion Offense. Stef Dolson is often involved in both from the high post.

http://www.breakthroughbasketball.com/pr/Perkins-European-Ball-Screen.html

 

[cferraro04]

While discussing his reactions to the Ackerman White Paper proposals in a Swish Appeal article , Karl Smesko, the head coach at FGCU, had some suggestions of his own.

One of his suggestions can fairly be described as "bold".

He proposes to "eliminate the ball screen".

He argues: "Eliminating the ball screen should lead to more offensive player movement and more offensive ball movement. Each of these leads to more spectator friendly game"

I confess my initial reaction was "you've got to be kidding". He isn't. I thought some of the basketball savvy readers might have some useful opinions.

I would say that it eliminates one of the aspects of team play in favor of individual play. Since basketball is a team sport...I don't favor any rule changes that encourage individual one on one play. JMHO

 

[CL82]

How does it eliminate an offensive player? The dribbler can still drive or shoot, the screener can still roll to the basket or step back for a pass, and the perimeter players will get open if their defender helps on the dribbler or screener.

Seems to me the best reason for a coach to avoid using a ball screen offense is because it doesn't result in good offensive ball movement. If a player came from a high school system that utilized ball screens extensively, the players would have less experience moving without the ball. But college is the last basketball stop for most women, so a lot of coaches use it because it's effective. But I personally prefer the beauty of a motion offense.

I don't disagree. The idea is that the screening player is not open for a pass and thus not a threat during the screen. I leaned toward the dad next to me and quietly said "Pick and roll?" and he nodded slightly. Like I said, I understand the point but don't necessarily agree with it.