So Im in my 4th year coaching youth basketball and 2nd with a different school. I'm more geared towards defenses as thats what I pride myself in. I've been doing my research in trying to install a motion offense but then a different approach entered my mind. What about the Read and React offense which is suppose to be a simple offense and can combat any defense. What exactly is the difference between the motion and the R&R offense? Cant wait to get the practice sessions going.
Read And React Offense
Started by Coach3, Aug 23 2009 11:50 AM
2 replies to this topic
#2
Tyreke
-
- Members
-
- 1 posts
Member
- Gender:Male
- Location:Vantaa/Finland
Posted 07 February 2010 - 01:19 PM
R&R pdf
Motin offense:
- High IQ pre-requisite
- Players w/o ball have
many options
- Too much freedom
Read & React:
- Developmental
- Players w/o ball have 1
reaction
- 1 player with ball has
freedom; 4 has
diciplined reactions
What exactly is the difference between the motion and the R&R offense?
Motin offense:
- High IQ pre-requisite
- Players w/o ball have
many options
- Too much freedom
Read & React:
- Developmental
- Players w/o ball have 1
reaction
- 1 player with ball has
freedom; 4 has
diciplined reactions
#3
hoopologist
-
- Members
-
- 16 posts
Coach
Posted 09 February 2010 - 09:00 PM
Hello Frank,
I've read your question regarding the contrasts between Motion and a "read and react" offense.
I have also looked through about half of the pages of the pdf posted above me in the thread.
I suppose my primary question would be "what exactly are the offensive players reading and reacting to?".
As a coach I believe we must presume every student knows nothing about the game of basketball while at the same time looking for players (which I'll call College Recruiting) who have a lot of basketball savvy. The first allows us as coaches to properly prepare for the art of teaching - and that is what coaching is. The second helps the first and gives us a chance to do some other things in that teaching as the result of "better" players. I bring this up because I actually find the concept of "high IQ" being a negative requirement of a player to be quite upsetting. I'm building young people for the world of tomorrow and I'm doing it through sport. Ergo cultivating a player who can think and is not an automaton is critical both to my basketball tactics and society.
Motion is a very challenging offense to teach. That sentence also tells you why it is challenging. It requires real teaching. There are no patterned movements. Players must be taught to read their defender and how to respond to that read. They must be taught how to play without the basketball - a very tough thing in the current day of hourly ESPN highlites which emphasize only offense (with the ball highlites). And that teaching needs to be drilled over and over, often in varied ways to reach the myriad of minds on the court - just like the classroom.
As diagramed I'd have a few issues with Read and React. First it claims to allow freedom and excitement but also states that Motion has too much freedom. So right off the bat my spidey sense is tingling. Second, it mandates that in order for a guarded player to get open he either beats his man off a cut or off a dribble. These two things are fine but they are incomplete as far as offensive basketball goes. Furthermore, I believe the diagramed offense would place younger players in a position to make passes beyond their capacity AND place offensive players far too close to the baseline allowing better defenders to utilize the baseline as an extra defender.
The spacing of the offense is very nice but I'd question the statement that it is simple enough for youngsters AND complex enough for pros.
Some of the components of the read offense are in the Motion offense but that is about as much as I can say in terms of similarities. For a coach who does not understand when to make a basket cut, a replace cut, or a shallow cut, for the coach who does not understand the position of the defender that warrants each of these cuts, or for the coach who dies understand them but simply doesn't want to or cannot convey them to his personnel, Motion is not a very good choice. A patterned offense for that particular coach would likely be more fruitful.
I've read your question regarding the contrasts between Motion and a "read and react" offense.
I have also looked through about half of the pages of the pdf posted above me in the thread.
I suppose my primary question would be "what exactly are the offensive players reading and reacting to?".
As a coach I believe we must presume every student knows nothing about the game of basketball while at the same time looking for players (which I'll call College Recruiting) who have a lot of basketball savvy. The first allows us as coaches to properly prepare for the art of teaching - and that is what coaching is. The second helps the first and gives us a chance to do some other things in that teaching as the result of "better" players. I bring this up because I actually find the concept of "high IQ" being a negative requirement of a player to be quite upsetting. I'm building young people for the world of tomorrow and I'm doing it through sport. Ergo cultivating a player who can think and is not an automaton is critical both to my basketball tactics and society.
Motion is a very challenging offense to teach. That sentence also tells you why it is challenging. It requires real teaching. There are no patterned movements. Players must be taught to read their defender and how to respond to that read. They must be taught how to play without the basketball - a very tough thing in the current day of hourly ESPN highlites which emphasize only offense (with the ball highlites). And that teaching needs to be drilled over and over, often in varied ways to reach the myriad of minds on the court - just like the classroom.
As diagramed I'd have a few issues with Read and React. First it claims to allow freedom and excitement but also states that Motion has too much freedom. So right off the bat my spidey sense is tingling. Second, it mandates that in order for a guarded player to get open he either beats his man off a cut or off a dribble. These two things are fine but they are incomplete as far as offensive basketball goes. Furthermore, I believe the diagramed offense would place younger players in a position to make passes beyond their capacity AND place offensive players far too close to the baseline allowing better defenders to utilize the baseline as an extra defender.
The spacing of the offense is very nice but I'd question the statement that it is simple enough for youngsters AND complex enough for pros.
Some of the components of the read offense are in the Motion offense but that is about as much as I can say in terms of similarities. For a coach who does not understand when to make a basket cut, a replace cut, or a shallow cut, for the coach who does not understand the position of the defender that warrants each of these cuts, or for the coach who dies understand them but simply doesn't want to or cannot convey them to his personnel, Motion is not a very good choice. A patterned offense for that particular coach would likely be more fruitful.
