So true. If either were accompanied by any sort of off the ball action to open up good shots and add unpredictability, sure, go with those as foundations for the offense.
But when either one is clearly the only thing that we're going to try, come on. Add a wrinkle or 5000.
(Note: I picked 5000 because I can't remember the # we threw around in the GMac years.)
What really mystified me was not that our half-court offense and sets were bad, but that Prohm seemed to insist that we were going to play a half-court game despite that being an obvious weakness.
Prohm teams were this odd mixture of small and slow. He did not let his guys run much. That worked with the '17 and '19 teams because they had such awesome offensive firepower, but with his other teams...
Why not try it...? Better than pounding the rock then turning it over or bricking a bad shot in the half-court.
A few of his best players (e.g., Haliburton and Bolton) would have been great in a run 'n' gun offense. Given the generally flat (and low) talent level on the team, too, why not go hard when you have equivalent subs.
The whole Prohm tenure reminds me of standing muzzle-to-muzzle with British redcoats during the Revolutionary War. You know they are better at that then you. You know respecting the rules of fair conduct and "gentlemanly" warfare are going to force you into an unwinnable situation. So why do you still march up there and do it?
Why don't you do what you should -- refuse to fight like that, muddy up the game with pressure and tempo on offense, and see what happens? Might fail sometimes, but it might work sometimes, too, and it allows you to give more playing time to your bench guys and maybe makes the whole experience a bit more fun.