Enter the Offense Lab with me

New Draft term unlocked: Consensus Board. You know all about arm length, Wonderlic tests, 40 times, the cone drill. If I say a mid-round WR prospect is “twitchy”, you’re very aware he’s under six feet tall and destined for the slot. This year however, was all about the Consensus Board.

From what I gather, teams filter public and private mock drafts into a singular board that outlines when and where every player is likely to be picked. Why does this matter? If you’ve starred a particular player, and the Consensus Board has him slated to go somewhere around 100, it might behoove you to move back 10 or 20 spots, pick up an extra pick from some team, and grab your guy at 95. Just one example of Consensus Board manipulation.

These boards are different than mock drafts, different than outright player rankings, and different (based on algorithms) for each team. Apparently, they’ve been adopted with more regularity in the last decade.

This year’s biggest Consensus Board Deviant: James Gladstone, GM Jaguars. Gladstone outright offended Todd McShay. In yesteryear, we’d say that a team reached on this guy or that. And next year, we’ll all remark that someone tossed out the Consensus Board, moved up, and picked some lousy RB (looking at you Kyle Shanahan). Keep up with the vernacular folks.

By trade, I’m a basketball player. Football is Family. Baseball fills my Heart. Basketball steals my Mind. As I’ve gotten deeper into retirement, since my last high school basketball game, I wonder if the game passed me by. I wonder if my mind doesn’t grasp when drop coverage on a pick and roll is more effective than a high hedge. Football X’s and O’s are much easier to communicate, more interesting on a visual level, and well documented by the mainstream and niche-stream of the internet. Trying to decipher basketball strategy in a six or seven game series feels futile at times. The team with the best player playing the best usually wins. How much analysis does that take?

Most commentators breaking down the NBA have trended to analyzing the game from a watchability perspective. Do we want to see this much offense? Is the league a three point launching monolith? Are the stars (SGA) foul-baiting to the degree that people throw the remote across the room? Is it that high level analysts don’t care or can’t communicate what teams are trying to achieve possession to possession?

A few months back, I too bemoaned the product on display. My hypothesis: the League’s strict adherence to playing with pace, space, and three point shots had removed any nuance team to team. Gone were teams with defined offensive systems. No Spurs ball movement, no Lakers triangle, no Jerry Sloan flex offense. I posited that the League had become less interesting as teams mirrored each other.

Fast forward to the playoffs and offenses have come crashing down. Again, most of the analysis focuses on whether these defensive grinds are fun to watch. Some analysis stops at understanding that the pace is slower. Possessions shrink and we don’t see 120 or 130pt scoring nights. Still more commentators note that only the best defenses are on display, and that no team is going against a TANKHOLE actively trying to lose. Yet, even on a per possession, scoring is down. Teams are converting chances at a radically less efficient rate than they do in January. The outliers are outright disgusting:

Someone has to ask why and that someone is me. All of the practical hypotheses above play apart, but the offensive perils breakdown to homogenous team building and a lack of structured offense. The whole league is defined by 3-and-D wings and rim-running Bigs. But the “3” part of 3-and-D seems to have escaped everyone. The gulf between a regular season clean three pointer and a contested corner 3 is wider than ever. And these wings have no interest in the midrange, no ability to pressure the rim, and they’re guarded by yet another 3-and-D defender. When that defender has all the advantages of playoff officiating, he’s going to smother a lousy offensive player like Cam Johnson. Or Josh Okogie, Tari Eason, Derrick White. Outside of an offensive system that can produce opportunities, 80% of the players on the court are largely ineffectual. The group of teams advancing to round 2 either barely squeaked by trash losers (Detroit, Cleveland), gritted out incrementally more defense than their opponent (LA, MIN) or had their offense actually show up (NY, PHI, OKC).

A lot of to digest for something we have no control over. Here’s my recommendation: as you watch the next few rounds, notice which teams run high pick and roll over and over and over again. They’re going to lose. Identify the teams that initiate offense after 2+ passes. Spot teams calling out an actual play as they walk the ball up the court. They’re likely to be holding the trophy in June.