What ever happened to the 2 for 1 play?

by akuma77 on Feb 27, 2008 11:06 AM CST Comment 42 comments

I watched the bullies blow chances on executing the "classic" 2 for 1 play after each qrt. Do they not realize they're crapping away an extra possesion and the last shot?

They blew one big time at the end of that first half against the Mavs, when Stackhouse hit that 3 to put them ahead by 10. That play along with countless others are, one of several reasons the bulls can't break'on through the otherside.

Plays like that always seem to snowball against them and they don't have someone yet that is stepping up to the plate to erase those flaws.

Clock management is an important phase of the game. It all comes down to "Who has the most possesions and high percentage shots?". Its a formula I thought was implanted in ever true gamer. If only Ben Gordon would STOP dribbling and start popping clutch shots! We totaly had a chance to steal that Mavs game with under 6 mins to play, if only Gordon new his role that moment. TAKE THE FLIPPIN SHOT! HIT THAT BIG TIME 3 POINTER! WIN THE GAME!

At least get the shot off, give the team another chance to cut down those "GroundHog Day" like leads that cause dizziness and nausea.

FanPosts are user-created posts from the BlogABull community, and are to be treated as the opinions and views of that particular user, not that of the blogger or blog community as a whole.

0 recs | Comment 42 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Bulls closed the half

with a nice drive to the rim by Nocioni. That was the play as it was called by Boylan. Not sure if they were supposed to stall for a minute or two, but the lane opened up for Noc to slash with 6 seconds remaining. Stackhouse had 4.5 seconds to work with.

The Kids Must Stay In The Picture!!!

by NBA Observer on Feb 27, 2008 12:06 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I think

the point of it was that if we had taken a quick shot during that possession, we would have gotten the ball back again since there were like 30 seconds left or so when we took the ball up. thus giving us the 2 for 1.

i didn't think it was a bad play, though the 2 for 1 thing did cross my mind at the beginning of the play.

by Jaina on Feb 27, 2008 12:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

might i add

that i think the way it worked was fine - stack's shot was tough. and if we had tried a 2 for 1 we most likely would have gotten 2 rushed shots off, if that, thus lowering our percentage for either one.

by Jaina on Feb 27, 2008 12:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

practice makes perfect

don't worry about percentages. it's all about the flow of the game. as a gamer one should know when and when not to rise above the sleeper. The goal is to win the game. Stack knew what he had to do and believe me, he knew that shot was going in. its an art form squaring-up like he did and popping that 3.

by akuma77 on Feb 27, 2008 3:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

And stackhouse's play was hardly

A high percentage shot....

Dallas got rather lucky at hitting every big shot (several of which were highly contested) whenever they needed to.

Dirk was incredible too. I keep going back at the "switch" where Gordon and Tyrus were pushed into switching on D, and all the other Bulls sat around and watched as Dirk drained a very big 3 pt shot over little Ben. That was a major defensive error for the Bulls. Ben stood no chance.

by majoyenrac on Feb 27, 2008 12:17 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Its just

one of many things that BOYLAN is lacking in his coaching reputare (spelling). Another thing is stopping a team's run. He loves to stop a players run. For instance when we are playing a big time guy and he comes out cold and hits a nice shot Boylan will call a t.o and try and freeze him up. its a nice coaching trick and usually a fairly effective one.

Now he needs to incorporate that into the team. Last game late in the third i think or maybe 4th. The Bulls looked winded and Dallas was starting to make there move. The lead was 8 and it was clear that some guys needed to come back in and the offense was looking shacky/winded whatever so instead of calling a timeout and halting the 8 point lead he let in play out and it turned into a 12 point lead in a matter of two possesions. It might not be much (4 points) but that situation couldve probably been avoided.

Also he needs to stop trying to match up the other coaches moves and take advantage of the moves the other coach makes. If the other coach goes small go BIG. Dont try to match him then you are playing right into what he wants.

Seriously what is with this 3 gaurd crap? If we had 3 good gaurds maybe but we dont. Scrap it.. Go with conventional lineups until the situation dictates it. Seems like anytime Boylan gets in a pinch he goes to a three gaurd set. We end up having a gaurd on a bigger three or worse and we get abused.

Boylan has shown me nothing as a defensive coach and if thats the way its gonna be we're gonna loose alot more games because lets face it we dont have a Top 10. Shoot a Top 20 offense. He's all about scoring and I havent heard a pep from him about defense.

Trying to build the Bulls into the Suns/warriors is like trying to turn the Bears into Colts. (running team, passing team) Got it?

Thats not what a Chicago team does..

by Bulls4Ever on Feb 27, 2008 12:39 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

FYI: repertoire

Main Entry:
rep·er·toire
Pronunciation:
ˈre-pə(r)-ˌtwär\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
French répertoire, from Late Latin repertorium
Date:
1847

a: supply of skills, devices, or expedients <part of the repertoire of a quarterback>; broadly : amount, supply <an endless repertoire of summer clothes> b: the complete list or supply of skills, devices, or ingredients used in a particular field, occupation, or practice <the repertoire of basketball coaching<br>

by Cannoli on Feb 27, 2008 3:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks

by Bulls4Ever on Feb 27, 2008 3:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Dear Fellow Literate,

Welcome to blogabulls.

Sincerely,

bullhockey

"Duhon, don't make that garbage-time jumper... Save it for the next game!"

by bullhockey on Feb 29, 2008 9:44 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

also

what happend to the delay of game when the game comes down to the last possesion and the defense takes the delay of game to see the designed play.

I vote for Thomas to play, play more and play regularly.-Sam Smith

by tyrus4prez on Feb 27, 2008 1:01 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Boylan also hasn't employed

the statue of liberty play or the fumblerooskie, yet. I don't get the sense that Boylan understands the fundamentals of misdirection at all. It seems like they run BG off-tackle every other play and only occasionally throw it deep to Thabo.

Baby Bulls II?

by bullshooter on Feb 27, 2008 1:30 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

The

statue of liberty play or fumblerooskie? is that your way of being funny? Cause i dont get it.

by Bulls4Ever on Feb 27, 2008 1:43 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

you don't get it?

you mean like how the reply button works?

Baby Bulls II?

by bullshooter on Feb 27, 2008 2:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Your so funny!

Next you'll be crying about my spelling. Go crawl back in that hole you came from. maybe you can practice some of those football plays.

by Bulls4Ever on Feb 27, 2008 2:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

you seem to be the one throwing the tantrum

I was just being funny... :-p

Baby Bulls II?

by bullshooter on Feb 27, 2008 2:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Your

about as funny as Boylan is a good coach. Stick to your day job. I suppose your tantrum comment was also you being funny! You crack me up.. Not

by Bulls4Ever on Feb 27, 2008 3:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I love

the "not" joke. Man, I haven't heard one of those since the mid-nineties. Good times.

by jpchi on Feb 27, 2008 3:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I had

to go way back for that one.

by Bulls4Ever on Feb 27, 2008 3:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

don't get sucked in

Bulls4Ever...you'll never get those precious moments back again.

by ScottieCartwright on Feb 27, 2008 2:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I

wont Scottie!

by Bulls4Ever on Feb 27, 2008 3:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

hey, he does know how it works!

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Feb 27, 2008 2:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Seriously

whats the big deal about using reply?

by Bulls4Ever on Feb 27, 2008 3:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

it's the biggest deal

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Feb 27, 2008 3:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It makes

the conversation flow and easier to read.

Kirk Hinrump is dead to me. :-)

by sue369 on Feb 27, 2008 3:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

LOL

New sig referencing his night out with the boys the other night?

by California Al on Feb 27, 2008 6:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Nope

It's about Scottie's alias (Kirk Hinrump) that he was using in here today and Matt banned.

Kirk Hinrump is dead to me. :-)

by sue369 on Feb 27, 2008 7:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know what was worse

that Scottie did that, or that he made a comment denying it while effectively calling such an act pathetic :)

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Feb 27, 2008 10:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah... um, 50%?

Teams shoot worse than that regularly. I don't see how they would get better by forcing it while at the same time allowing the other team to run whatever play they want.

The 2-for-1 is only smart if you get the ball with at least 40 seconds or can get out and "for sure" score (time doesn't matter because if you're able to get a sure basket, you take it every time except n the 4th).

Let us prepare for glory! --Michael Redd

by tyger1147 on Feb 28, 2008 9:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Who the hell

are you replying to?

Kirk Hinrump is dead to me. :-)

by sue369 on Feb 28, 2008 11:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

don't assume...

Assumption is the mother of all F***-ups!
Confidence my friends confidence.
1. full trust; belief in the powers, trustworthiness, or reliability of a person or thing: "We have every confidence in their ability to succeed."

there are other hidden pluses in running the
2 for 1:

possibility of the opponent getting in foul trouble.
a momentum swing.
holding for the final shot; game on the line or not.
getting the ball out of the hands of the opponents superstar in clutch situations.

by akuma77 on Feb 27, 2008 1:49 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

you know what's even funnier about this?

is how often people bitch about the guards and Noc taking shots early in the shot clock. IIRC, the bulls got the ball with ~32 seconds left. So you want them to run down the court and take a shot in about the first 5 seconds so they could get the ball back with about 5 seconds left and take another hurried shot. Does that still make a lot of sense to you, because it doesn't to me.

Baby Bulls II?

by bullshooter on Feb 27, 2008 2:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i made the same point above

that in this case it would have caused 2 rushed shots instead of 1 decent one. and it's not like stack's shot was high percentage.

by Jaina on Feb 27, 2008 2:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I wanted to reiterate

since akuma didn't seem to notice.

Baby Bulls II?

by bullshooter on Feb 27, 2008 2:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i get the feeling

that some people here write diaries (or comment) just to hear themselves talk (don't know what the equivalent phrase is for writing) and that they don't actually read or comprehend other comments. when they reply, they only continue to reiterate their (sometimes unfounded, but not necessarily) ideas.

don't know if akuma is one of those.. and it wasn't even a knock on you or whatever when i said i had already brought up the point but just sort of backing you up i guess.

by Jaina on Feb 27, 2008 2:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

you gravely over looked my point.

That play was just one in dozens where the bulls needlessly give away possessions and allowed a snowballing effect to take place. sometimes causing them to lose big leads or sink deeper in the hole. they've been incapable of putting on good runs on a consistant level to get them back into games on command. the 2 for 1 is just an efficient tactic we once perfected.

by akuma77 on Feb 27, 2008 3:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

as i said

i wasn't necessarily referring to you, other than the fact you didn't really acknowledge possible explanations as to why we didn't do a 2 for 1 on that play.

i completely agree with the fact we don't utilize it correctly and think that our end of quarter/half/game plays suck hardcore.

the bulls have a lot of problems but yes, we allow our opponent to get runs due to lack of an appropriate play. we just never seem to gain momentum correctly.

by Jaina on Feb 27, 2008 3:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

good talk

see ya after tonights game

by akuma77 on Feb 27, 2008 4:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

SNOWBALLING!!!

it happens to the bulls a heck of alot if you haven't noticed. tell me you didn't feel it in your gut that shot wasn't going in? i sure did.
stackhouse has done it numerous time and in play off situations. know your personnel. guy has been in ALL STAR games.

by akuma77 on Feb 27, 2008 3:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

poor example i give you that much

based on the time left, yeah it doesn't seen like the obvious play but when you're on the road up against the Mavs and you're trying to stay above water...it makes perfect sense.If you happen to have a play where one or two quick passes finds a wide open Gordon, you can take a high percentage shot with only 5 sec. It can be done! We've all seen it before.
And its fine to take those shots early in the clock if players are hot(make sure ofcourse we have rebounders in the paint first) and if both teams are runnin-N-gunnin early in qtrs. But that was a final min and heading into the locker rm. Try to the steal momentum by taking a risk once and awhile for all that is holy!
hey i won the "Whats your beef" tuesday with my 2 for 1 play call. CHURCHS BABY!!

by akuma77 on Feb 27, 2008 3:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree they're bad at the end of quarters

but they're also bad at the other parts of the game, and that should be fixed first.

That said, it is one way to evaluate coaching: and it's pretty tiresome when they fail to get a 2-for-1, or...when they know they can't run out the clock, yet run an end-of-quarter play (i.e. Gordon standing for 20 seconds) anyway.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Feb 27, 2008 2:02 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

It's a good point, Akuma

If you think you can hit 50% of those shots and can get a stop in between, why wouldn't you take the 2 fer every time? On the other hand, if you're playing with a defeatist mindset (which they obviously are), the prevent looks like the best option all the time. I know, MJ's not walking through that door, but what came first, the attitude or the results? Magic said it best, you have to have a certain audacity.

by California Al on Feb 27, 2008 6:26 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Thing about the 2 for 1

we were talking about it here but there was an opportunity for the Pacers to do a 2 for 1 as well at some point. I believe it was when they got the offensive rebound anyways. But I just remember their announcers (since I had the Indy feed) saying they could do a 2 for 1 but that O'Brien doesn't typically run that play.

Just thought it was interesting after all our discussion over the 2 for 1 we had an instance where the opponent had the opportunity but didn't use it.

by Jaina on Feb 28, 2008 9:06 AM CST reply actions 0 recs