Seven Seconds

[fishonjazz]

I feel like most teams do this to close out close games because it minimizes risk. If you just run offense, hoping to get Hayward (or whoever has the hot hand) a shot, things might breakdown since defense are usually more aggressive. You run the risk of turning the ball over or not getting a good shot. By putting the ball in the hot player's hands you at least guarantee a shot in most cases.

Solid

 

[fishonjazz]

To me, while it makes sense, it's sort of like the prevent defense. Teams in these situations aren't playing the game naturally, as they've been taught. They overthink, get too safe, and it typically results in bad **** happening.

Think aggressively and play aggressively without being reckless or careless. I nothing's there, nothing's there. Don't rush a shot or make an errant pass. Take what's there when it's there.

This is a pretty solid other side of the coin

 

[fishonjazz]

I like going to your best player (superstar) and letting him go to work at the end of games..... but only if you have a true star player. The Jazz don't.

So in the jazz case I say run the offense and get the best shot possible while staying aggressive with the clock

 

[Jamezz]

When you post a thread labeled "Seven Seconds", it could have gone in so many directions.

I thought it was a movie in the making, with Nicholas Cage

 

[QuinSnydersHair]

I like going to your best player (superstar) and letting him go to work at the end of games..... but only if you have a true star player. The Jazz don't.

So in the jazz case I say run the offense and get the best shot possible while staying aggressive with the clock

This seems to go along more with my line of thinking though I will concede there are obvious times a team should just simply run it down to one second and chuck up a shot. Like I was saying though, this agrees more with my philosophy which to me, also teaches a team to play in such pressure situations. And yes, there is pressure though you're winning. But just kicking the ball around for 23 seconds and then chucking it up teaches next to nothing which will hurt once those tight pressure situations do arise. IMO of course.

 

[VINYLONE]

But just kicking the ball around for 23 seconds and then chucking it up teaches next to nothing which will hurt once those tight pressure situations do arise.

Could it be that Mr. Snyder is using the trail by fire method as opposed to the bring them along slowly method?

 

[QuinSnydersHair]

Could it be that Mr. Snyder is using the trail by fire method as opposed to the bring them along slowly method?

The trial by fire method is my line of thinking. It teaches. The run the shot clock out which the OP criticized Quin of promoting does not.

 

[Stifle Tower]

To me, while it makes sense, it's sort of like the prevent defense. Teams in these situations aren't playing the game naturally, as they've been taught. They overthink, get too safe, and it typically results in bad **** happening.

Think aggressively and play aggressively without being reckless or careless. If nothing's there, nothing's there. Don't rush a shot or make an errant pass. Take what's there when it's there.

That's my thinking. Run your normal offense and try to get the ball inside. If you score on an easy dunk, what's the harm? Now I can see playing for a final shot with the game tied, but a team up by 1 or 2 shouldn't fear an easy bucket if it comes with 5, 10 or 15 seconds left on the shot clock. And if the easy 2 isn't available, then back it out and start over. Shot opportunities are created with player and ball movement, getting opponents out of position and switching on multiple screens.

Instead, the Jazz waste all that time, put up a bad shot and a basket on the other end ties the game or cuts into the lead.

 

[[size/HUGE] boobs [/size]]

Is it just me or does anyone else also cringe when the Jazz decide to run the shot clock down to 7 seconds before initiating the offense? Yes, I know, the idea is to take as much time off as possible to preserve a lead or leave fewer seconds for the other team to get a shot at the end of quarters. But whether it's Trey or Gordon dribbling the ball, I've not seen many good shots result from the strategy. Last night trying to run clock may have cost us the game. I think Utah would be better off just running their normal offense. It usually takes 20 seconds to get a good shot anyway. So try to get something inside or an open three. Instead, Jazz get long, off-balance 2's by Trey or Gordon.

What we need is have a player coach like in 1950's. All these old guys do is get in the way and drag us down man. They drag us the **** down.


I nominate like Hayward and Trey split duties until Greg O'Connor can decide who fits the role best. This coach thing was a nice 40 year experiment but it's obviously time to go.

 

[[size/HUGE] boobs [/size]]

That's my thinking. Run your normal offense and try to get the ball inside. If you score on an easy dunk, what's the harm? Now I can see playing for a final shot with the game tied, but a team up by 1 or 2 shouldn't fear an easy bucket if it comes with 5, 10 or 15 seconds left on the shot clock. And if the easy 2 isn't available, then back it out and start over. Shot opportunities are created with player and ball movement, getting opponents out of position and switching on multiple screens.

Instead, the Jazz waste all that time, put up a bad shot and a basket on the other end ties the game or cuts into the lead.

I'm pretty sure no NBA coach has thought about this ever. Like ever ever they never thought about this ever. They are all idiots we need to get rid of them all like what has mark Jackson or Derrick fisher or Jason Kidd ever done? Nothing fire them all today isn't soon enough.

 

[Stifle Tower]

I'm pretty sure no NBA coach has thought about this ever. Like ever ever they never thought about this ever. They are all idiots we need to get rid of them all like what has mark Jackson or Derrick fisher or Jason Kidd ever done? Nothing fire them all today isn't soon enough.

LOL!
Of course they have. Do all teams run the prevent defense in football? They don't. My point is that when something isn't working, you don't just keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results. It's very clear we don't have the personnel to beat opponents off the dribble, especially when they know exactly what's coming. Admittedly I haven't watched all 30 teams enough to say whether or not every one does the same when trying to run clock. Yet when the game is on the line, the Jazz try to do something which is clearly a weakness and which they don't do for the other 46 minutes.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

LOL!
Of course they have. Do all teams run the prevent defense in football? They don't. My point is that when something isn't working, you don't just keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results. It's very clear we don't have the personnel to beat opponents off the dribble, especially when they know exactly what's coming. Admittedly I haven't watched all 30 teams enough to say whether or not every one does the same when trying to run clock. Yet when the game is on the line, the Jazz try to do something which is clearly a weakness and which they don't do for the other 46 minutes.

No, but most teams just run the ball 3 straight plays in a row to waste clock instead of aggressively going for 1st downs in late game situations w/ the lead.

Reasons: Minimizes risk, same reason why team's milk the clock with isolation followed by higher PNR's. Limit's turnovers and guarantees you get your shot off while wasting as much clock as possible.


Could we run a play? Sure, but you run a higher risk of a TO. Also you risk shooting too early and missing or not being able to get the ball where you want it because of increased off-ball defensive intensity.