Utilizing and Defending the Backscreen
Part Two
By: Ryan Mattocks
In our second part of the series, DukeHoopBlog will dissect NC State’s effective use of the backscreen in the halfcourt out of a 2-3 high alignment in their upset win over Duke on January 20, 2010.
“I swear I’ve seen this somewhere before.”
In basketball, coaches at the highest levels will do just about anything to gain a competitive advantage. Part of that is having no shame in “borrowing” from their colleagues’ philosophies, both past and present, when the situation calls for it. Wolfpack head man Sidney Lowe did just that last season in his team’s dismantling of the eventual National Champions by resuscitating an age-old M2M offensive series introduced over 40 years ago by arguably the greatest coach to ever don a whistle. John Wooden’s legendary “UCLA High Post Offense” proved to be an instrumental part of Coach Lowe’s gameplan. Today we’ll break down one exchange from the game in which the Wolfpack executed it beautifully and explain both why it worked and what Duke could have possibly done differently to defend against it.
Coach Lowe is not alone in his affinity for the ageless high-post attack. Bob Huggins, Jim Harrick, Mark Gottfried, Ben Braun and Rick Carlisle (NBA) are just a few contemporary names you may recognize who have also tinkered with the Wizard of Westwood’s creation in recent memory. Just as the great artists throughout history have had pupils, so have the truly innovative coaching minds in basketball.
The backscreen, the specific aspect of Wooden’s High Post Offense we’re focusing on, has proven potent in other offensive alignments over the years as well. North Carolina’s famed secondary break has effectively utilized backscreens for decades (you may recognize their “High Screen” set where the PG comes off a high ballscreen and they get a lob off screen-the-screener action), but the Heels have also done a good job, historically, of backscreening against zones (see Kevin Salvadori’s backscreen at 0:21 of this clip from the ’93-’94 season: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HeCV-WGulo). Similarly, the Princeton Offense, perfected by coaching wunderkind Pete Carrill, has actions that revolve around backscreening in the high post (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtwRI147E9c).
What does all this mean? To me, it screams, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!” Just as Bill Carmody’s Northwestern teams pay homage to Pete Carrill by running the Princeton Offense with great precision and efficiency today, Wooden’s High Post Offense rears its head in different forms throughout the college basketball landscape to this day. Let’s watch it in action and see how backscreening within it can produce easy buckets.
Pause at 0:55 of the clip. Play runs from 0:55-0:59.
To better understand what’s going on in the clip, let’s break down the offense’s alignment and briefly explain Coach Lowe’s reasoning behind running it in this situation. First, the Wolfpack lines up in a 2-3 High set. Simply put, this means they have a two guard front (Wood/Horner) and their remaining three players are spaced out on or above the FT line extended. In laymen’s terms, Lowe wanted to open up the lane for cutters and lean on his team’s collective passing acumen to preserve their double-digit second half lead. With Duke’s ultra-aggressive, up the line/on the line M2M defensive philosophy, he undoubtedly believed he could pull the Blue Devils’ bigs out of the post with this 2-3 high set – which he did.
As you can see, Tracy Smith is positioned in the high post (FT line area), Farnold Degand is stationed high on the right wing, and streaky shooter Javi Gonzalez is manning the left wing. With Scott Wood (with ball) and Dennis Horner comprising the 2-guard front, the Wolfpack’s 2-3 High alignment is not difficult to spot.
As the play begins, Wood passes to Degand on the right wing. Here’s where things get interesting. As Degand receives the pass, the weak side high guard (Horner) sets up his cut and uses Tracy Smith’s backscreen to flash to the ballside block. Degand hits the cutter (Horner), who converts the layup before Duke’s defense can recover. This play is made possible by the solid backscreen set in the high post by State’s versatile PF, Tracy Smith.
Why it Worked
Pause the clip at 0:55. Smith is setting a backscreen for the cutting Horner. Mason Plumlee (guarding Horner) gets completely hung up on the screen. This is where Duke’s defensive breakdown occurred. As Coach K will attest, Duke’s M2M halfcourt defense is predicated on effective communication between the players. Their rotations are much smoother when he has a strong voice on the backline, which both Lance Thomas and Brian Zoubek were for the Devils in ’09-’10 season. That said, even the best communicators have slip-ups, which is what happened to Lance Thomas here.
Thomas, so intent on sticking with Smith, gets caught ball watching for a split second and doesn’t anticipate Horner’s cut off of Smith’s screen. Horner comes off of Smith’s outside shoulder (out of Thomas’ sight line) and in order for Duke to have prevented the cutter from being wide open on the opposite block, one of three things needed to have happened here. Depending on Duke’s defensive strategy to open the second half (which we’ll never know for sure, but I’d be willing to bet they were NOT switching), different players could have been accountable for this defensive lapse. Assuming Duke’s aim was to fight through off-ball screens, here’s how I see it.
Firstly, Thomas needed to communicate earlier with Plumlee, who could have conceivably gotten underneath the screen in time to ‘beat his man to the spot’. Thomas also could’ve sunk into the cutting lane and bumped Horner, throwing off the timing of the play and allowing Plumlee time to recover (this also would have given Smith, the on-ball defender, more time to heat the ball up – making it more difficult for Degand to get rid of it in general). A third option Duke had was to switch it (meaning Thomas could have picked up Horner and Mason Plumlee, in turn, would then be guarding T. Smith). Even if they were instructed to fight through screens, an absolutely necessary switch is always better than sticking to the gameplan and giving up points.
Digging a little deeper into the context surrounding the play, one can understand why Lance Thomas was so vigilant in staying with his man. This was thirty seconds into the second half and State PF Tracy Smith was lighting it up (7-8 FG in 1st half). Thomas, Duke’s most versatile and consistent post defender, was really the only guy on Krzyzewski’s roster capable of checking him (both Plumlees struggled keeping their hands to themselves in on-ball situations throughout the year and Zoubek’s lack of lateral quickness would have given Smith carte blanche access to the lane via dribble penetration). It was a sense of pride for LT to shut down the game’s first half MVP, no doubt. But he forgot one crucial element missing from Smith’s offensive repertoire: range out beyond the arc. In his three years at NCSU, Smith has attempted a grand total of zero three-pointers.
“So what, coach? What does that have to do with anything?”
Well, if LT would have sunk into the lane to bump the cutter (Horner) and Tracy Smith caught the ball at the top of the key after screening/popping out, it’s a pretty safe bet that he would not have launched a 3-ball after a ball reversal. In simple terms, Lance could have (probably should have) sunk to bump Horner in order to prevent the easy bucket State got off the X cut because the alternative would have been no worse (even if Smith buried, say, a long 2-pt. shot on a late closeout).
Assuming Mason was going to get caught on the screen, Duke still would have been better served to hard switch in this situation (hindsight’s 20/20). Thomas could’ve prevented the easy Horner lay-in and Mason Plumlee, for all his defensive struggles as a freshman, could have conceivably used his length to recover/deny an entry pass to Smith from the wing if he slipped the screen and went directly to the rim (assuming Horner flattened out along the ballside baseline after cutting through, ensuring ample spacing for Degand to pass the ball into a lane that wasn’t densely packed).
Though still in a tough spot, Duke’s team defense would have had more time to rotate over (i.e., Scheyer – 2 passes away at that point, would have likely been in good helpside position if Degand was forced to handle the ball another second or so until the slip was open). Then, Scheyer could have bumped the cutter (this time Smith), throwing him off his direct path to the hoop. If anything, he could have forced Smith to either score through/over a double team or find Gonzalez on a diagonal vs. intense ball pressure from two defenders. At that point, Singler may have been involved on the weakside as well depending on where Scott Wood ended up.
In summation, the backscreen is a weapon that should be loaded and fired more often in college basketball. As you can see from the clips, it is very difficult to defend and often leads to momentum changing plays that affect the rhythm of games in a much more impactful way than the simple two points they account for.
Next week DukeHoopBlog will tackle the final exchange of last year’s National Championship contest between Butler and Duke and opine on the pros and cons of Coach K’s fateful decision to have Brian Zoubek miss the second FT (up 2 with 3.6 seconds left). Please use the comment section below and give your .02 if you’re so inclined.
Thanks for reading!
