It was a great move by Self, however half this board could out coach Bruce Weber. His quote last night on why they didn't go to a zone offense, " We didn't prepare for a possible zone defense" He really is remarkable sometimes....
Zone...?
- Thread starter bonefish1
- Start date
The "context of the subject" was dribble penetration and zone. My comments were that you could stop it with man, but you would give up the same thing as a zone. Obviously Matt didn't shade it that much. I think Matt feared IU going off on a three ball at home. In over two years I have yet to see anyone tell me exactly what a zone can do that you can't do in man...two years. Now, if you want a zone..play zone and I'll challenge all to tell me what all the things I can't do in a zone different than man. Quite frankly...you start out with a lean and adjust your D. It really is as simple as do you guard area or player as your primary choice. Once you make that decision...you apply tendencies in the one you never chose.
I do not know the stats...the historical data and how that data was pulled from what populations to know the 3 ball data against certain D coupled with the 2 pts against certain teams and such. FWIW, I think Matt gave too much consideration to IU going off on the 3 ball, but that is me with absolutely NO data for that hunch. It is just plain silly to think that zone absolutely fixes everything and /or stops "BALL" penetration...I mean it really isn't the player penetration against man you are worried...it is the "BALL" penetration...
Absolutely. Look, teams get hot. They've have D1 players just like we do, so eventually, they might hit some shots. But, if they don't expect a zone, have to adjust to it and you make them uncomfortable doing so, maybe you force a couple empty possessions and that's all you needed.
Like I said, we don't need to become Syracuse and play zone for 40 minutes, but just mixing up the D to give the offense a different look and get them out of their rhythm is the idea.
So what you explained is exactly what CMP and Purdue did to Michigan in the first half of the game at Ann Arbor.
The main issue is you and others continually bring up a topic that simply isn't going to happen barring extreme circumstances. Instead, why not focus on the different types of adjustments could be made in the man to man that Purdue uses as the exclusive defense. There are countless ways to adjust and switch up the looks to do the same thing you are saying with a man to man defense.
I also wanted thank you for maintaining civility throughout our back and forth conversation. That's something I can say this board does relatively well as compared to others.
Last edited:
This part I mentioned a week or two ago and Do Dah Day gave a like because he understood. Sometimes when things are not working they are still better than the alternative. A two or three minute possession could easily be the difference between winning and not. All that said you "can" win with a zone and it is possible that a zone could be more effective than the man at a given instance, but when you sit back and study think about the two the lines of demarcation get blurred (now, I'm thinking of the song Blurred Lines
)Quite simply there are just more reasons day in and day out for most teams in man. Why is it nobody ever says we should play match-up...just how many people play a straight fricking zone in college?
The best argument I've heard for not adopting multiple defensive philosophies is the limited practice time. Every minute you spend practicing a secondary defense is a minute you can't spend practicing and improving your primary defense (or offense). It is a zero sum game, which is why teams that play multiple defenses generally aren't very good at either one. If I recall we've tried throwing some zone a couple times and it was a disaster.
Well I can buy this, but with Matt's hedging defense, I am not sure it would look very much difference to what we see now. Like you say, it might be worth a couple possessions just to confuse the opponent.
Playing zone does not take away basic offensive principles. You can still screen and roll, give and go, screen the screener, penetrate and dish, etc.. People think a zone stops dribble penetration. It can but it does it the same way man does. Either by having superior on ball defenders or by helping. Either way the same defensive deficiency exists plus the zone issues of rebounding being more difficult, inability to force matchups, and being susceptible to overloads.
Nothing wrong with zone but the higher the level the harder it is to make it work.
I think that works great in the sixth grade. Throw a zone at them. They flounder and call time out. When they come back you change it again. Not going to happen against a good D1 team.
I don't have a horse in the race so to speak, but to say playing zone is 6th grade is a stretch. So, Coach K and Coach Self are coaching 6th graders?
So, what you're saying is that when teams have suddenly thrown a press at Purdue and Purdue completely wilted, that it wasn't successful? It's the same principle.
Against a team like iu, which most would argue, isn't a good jump shooting team, you'd rather force them into jump shots (via a zone) then allow them to break down your defense off the dribble and continually have shots at the rim.
No, a full court press and a half court defensive concept/scheme are two drastically different concepts. Anyone who understands the game in detail knows that.
You do realize that IU averages nearly 73 points per game and gives up 71.5, right? You do realize that Purdue held IU to 67 while also scoring 74 themselves on a night where they personally struggled to hit shots from the arc?
You are attempting to create an issue where, simply put, there really isn't that drastic of an issue. Purdue held a team, who had an extended amount of time to prepare in a rivalry game, to 6 points below their average while scoring 3 more than the defensive average.
Did IU get a high amount of looks at or near the rim in the first half? Yes, but some of those shots were not high percentage shots that would be constituted more as flips or flings rather than shots. My total was roughly 10 points given up with shots that simply wouldn't go in most of the time they were taken (like the under hand scoop near the end of the game).
IU's 2pt fg % for the season is 54.2% while they shot 63.2% in the Purdue game. In the last 3 games, IU is shooting 62.9%. It isn't some aberration that flared up against Purdue only....IU has been playing better recently as their players have adjusted to new roles and expectations.
The "surprise" if it happens is the same. The press is more physical, the zone is not physically imposing as much as requiring mental focus and adjustment. In high school I am a firm believer in mixing the D.
You bring up good points bonefish1 and I personally think it's a worthy discussion that deserves merit. However, many here won't give it the light of day. I'll bite as I like to discuss strategy/philosophy.
The reality is we are winning a ton of games and ranked high and I think we are all enjoying that. We are beating all these teams that are on our schedule and many of them by a LOT. However, the truth is, we are not great at stopping dribble penetration from athletic NBA type guards. Granted, not many teams are. (That's why I chose Alabama as a lower seed I would want to avoid. Sexton would be a tough matchup and they have not so skilled but athletic bigs to rebound and defend better than most). To this point, we haven't faced a lot of NBA caliber guards on the schedule. However, if we are honest and want to get to a Final Four, we are going to face a team with dangerous guards that can get to the rim. So, this topic is pertinent in that regard.
When we have rim protection, we can recover or alter shots. Haarms provides good rim protection, but he is not the offensive threat of Haas at this point in his career. Haas can alter shots, but when he is hedging a ball screen at the top of the key, the diving big can consistently beat him to the rim on footspeed alone. The result is we give up easy layups (much like we did at IU).
I think if we give up a few layups here and there, it's not a big deal. However, if a team can run the same set over and over and consistently get layups, a defensive adjustment needs to be made when Haas is in the game.
2 proposed changes would be:
- Stay in man-to-man, but allow Haas to sag off of the pick and roll to give him less ground to make up when diving back to the rim. However, this would only work against a team in which their screening big cannot shoot the perimeter shot. I would say outside of Michigan there aren't a lot of teams where the guy Haas guards is consistent from 3. So, I think this may be the best approach.
- Against a terrible outside shooting team, like an IU, play some sort of defense (zone, man/zone mixture) that can allow Haas to stay closer to the rim where he is in better rebound position and the risk of his man scoring isn't great.
I say all of this not as a negative on this team. I am thoroughly enjoying this season, congratulate the team on all they have accomplished so far and looking forward to seeing what they can do to finish the season on a high note. Hopefully with a B1G championship and a deep run in the tourney. However, I will root for the team and enjoy it just as much even if they don't. A great group of guys to root for that are very well coached and represent the University in a first class manner. Boiler Up!
Last edited:
...and you forgot the points Purdue didn't get...but it is not needed to add value...just magnify what you said
Forgot that Purdue had a 3 taken away and IU for a free 2...yeah, let's not get started on the refs again.
I think that most of the challenges that Purdue has stopping the PnR are more related to personnel than scheme. Still, in their 4 previous Big Ten home games, IU was 4-0 and averaged 72 ppg. Holding them to 67 points, including 30 in the second half, was a solid defensive effort by Purdue. I don’t think that Purdue does better changing to a poory executed zone.
Last edited:
here is a thought I haven't been able to get across in two years it appears concerning zone and penetration and I'm going to make this lean heavily towards ball penetration off the dribble rather than pass penetration. If I am going to help defend a guy that has the physical attributes to drive teh ball and the skill set that requires honest D on his shot...my help defense whether in man or zone MUST be close enough to actually do that. If I start out in zone and do not move to help I won't stop him. If I'm in man and do not move the exact same distance necessary I will not stop him. IT is ALL about the space to cover and the time to do it.
Now theoretically whatever I play zone...man..matchup if my defenders are not close enough to help it doesn't matter and if they are close enough to help then I may ver well be vulnerable to my man scoring. It is all about what you are NOT willing to give up...how you play certain players that have the ball and certain players that don't.
Whatever your belief is...you MUST cover a distance in a given time. If you lean to matching up to the personnel you lean to man. If you lean to matching up the physical skills in an area of the court you lean to zone. If you try to match up the skills with teh court and yet cover more man you lean to man/zone or matchup. If I'm in any type of zone, teh offense has total say in where they place their offensive players against the defensive players guarding an area of the court. If I'm in man I match the player no matter where he is ...and adjust with switching as needed. There is little to NO difference in a sagging man defense that switches players and a match-up zone, but few talk match-up..only zone and yet most college teams play matchup not pure zone if they are in any type of a zone. All three can be successful. Before the shot clock Man had huge advantages...especially when behind. Wiht the shot clock playing some D...the advantages are diminsihed.
None of this is to you and quite frankly I don't know why I try to write what I do other than to say coaches could win with any, and have. Coaches could lose in theory by not switching defenses and could lose in theory by switching defenses. It has always been a rule of thumb that a man D has greater potential for improvement than a zone...perhaps due to all the flexibility...I don't know.
The reality is quite frankly that Purdue is very skillful, but not a team of athletes and wiht all the great offensive things Purdue can do if the game is called towards skill rather than athleticism it is limited in what it can do on defense...hence the huge reason why Purdue's defense is not as good when spread out forcing individual D as when it is more compressed and can have better access to team D. If this team finds the hustle on D it had in Butler...there will be less talk about the zone,b ut of course some of that is who Purdue is playing...and what Matt will trade...
There you have it...what I do not know...
I agree that it is personnel related. The resulting scheme considerations are to best handle those personnel limitations. To be clear, I stated my preference in adjusting to that (let Haas sag on the pick and roll to let him make up the ground to the rim).
Last edited:
I'm so dizzy,,here is a thought I haven't been able to get across in two years it appears concerning zone and penetration and I'm going to make this lean heavily towards ball penetration off the dribble rather than pass penetration. If I am going to help defend a guy that has the physical attributes to drive teh ball and the skill set that requires honest D on his shot...my help defense whether in man or zone MUST be close enough to actually do that. If I start out in zone and do not move to help I won't stop him. If I'm in man and do not move the exact same distance necessary I will not stop him. IT is ALL about the space to cover and the time to do it.
Now theoretically whatever I play zone...man..matchup if my defenders are not close enough to help it doesn't matter and if they are close enough to help then I may ver well be vulnerable to my man scoring. It is all about what you are NOT willing to give up...how you play certain players that have the ball and certain players that don't.
Whatever your belief is...you MUST cover a distance in a given time. If you lean to matching up to the personnel you lean to man. If you lean to matching up the physical skills in an area of the court you lean to zone. If you try to match up the skills with teh court and yet cover more man you lean to man/zone or matchup. If I'm in any type of zone, teh offense has total say in where they place their offensive players against the defensive players guarding an area of the court. If I'm in man I match the player no matter where he is ...and adjust with switching as needed. There is little to NO difference in a sagging man defense that switches players and a match-up zone, but few talk match-up..only zone and yet most college teams play matchup not pure zone if they are in any type of a zone. All three can be successful. Before the shot clock Man had huge advantages...especially when behind. Wiht the shot clock playing some D...the advantages are diminsihed.
None of this is to you and quite frankly I don't know why I try to write what I do other than to say coaches could win with any, and have. Coaches could lose in theory by not switching defenses and could lose in theory by switching defenses. It has always been a rule of thumb that a man D has greater potential for improvement than a zone...perhaps due to all the flexibility...I don't know.
The reality is quite frankly that Purdue is very skillful, but not a team of athletes and wiht all the great offensive things Purdue can do if the game is called towards skill rather than athleticism it is limited in what it can do on defense...hence the huge reason why Purdue's defense is not as good when spread out forcing individual D as when it is more compressed and can have better access to team D. If this team finds the hustle on D it had in Butler...there will be less talk about the zone,b ut of course some of that is who Purdue is playing...and what Matt will trade...
There you have it...what I do not know...
My head is spinning ....
But HELL YEAH, simple stuff here. if we play a sag-man, all defenders who are two passes away (not counting a skip) have one foot in the lane, and are quick to cover distance and have long arms. Pretty darned similar.
What you're missing is that you have to be GOOD at it.
Plenty of teams have thrown a full court press at Purdue and it was a joke. If you don't have the right personnel to do an effective press, it's NOT going to be good. And then you give up easy baskets.
The same thing with a zone. Kansas is the #1 team in the Big 12, but they give up 70 points a game. So their base defense isn't exactly "elite" (there's only 4 teams in the Big Ten giving up more points than that).
Those guys suck! Just kidding. I overreached on the 6th grade comment.
What I should have said is...good balanced offense will quickly adapt and be just as effective if not more so. Therefore I question if it is worth the resource expenditure in practice to be proficient. Regarding sixth graders. It’s much harder for youth teams to learn how to attack zone and therefore more effective as a D at that age. I am fine with either but my preference is man as I feel it can do any job a zone can do with less negatives.
I'd also add to my own thoughts - you only remember the games it's a problem. You don't think of the majority of our season that it's been a killer to most teams we've played.
Defenses are never 100% fool proof, no matter what you do. UVA has the best defense in the country - WVU, not exactly an offensive juggernaut, put up 68 on them which is a ton. That was a bad game for them.
Cincinnati has the 2nd best D in the country - Xavier put 90 on them.
It's the same thing with press - you remember the games it was a struggle. You don't remember the games where it wasn't.
What I tried to do is a diplomatic means as possible without saying one was great and the others were crap was to point out that the reality is you must cover a certain distance in a certain time...no matter what you play and you can make those distances the same amount no matter what you play and so the time to cover can be the same amount no matter what defense you play. if you play a 2-3 zone for example like Purdue tried a few years ago with their length...it was spread out to cover the shooters more than most zones. consequently, they got beat by Kansas State due to teh huge gap where Webber put a player in short corner and killed Purdue. Now, Purdue could have tightened that up...but then you give up the outside shot.
Where most people are wrong is thinking the magic forumula is a zone when the fact is their real concern is "HOW" they are playing man and giving up what they don't think Matt should. I would not have put as much emphasis on the 3 ball at Bloomington...but perhaps the statistical data with possessions and such said so. Anyway, I think the issue is how the man is played more than whether man should be played. There are those that like mixing D to confuse the offense (and hopefully not confuse the defense). I'm not sure it is as effective in high school as college...and I'm a believer in mixing it in high school...
Note that the Purdue teams who wilted against zone press were flawed offensively. Not seeing that happening to us now. What I should have said (and did in another post) is that zone does not cure poor defense. If you can not keep the ball from the rim in man you will also fail in zone. Against IU we improved defensively as the game progressed. Do whatever defense you do well and you don’t need to switch.
Personally I want more games against smaller, quicker lineups as that is what we need to get more work against in our man D. Now I am going to go to basketball practice and work on my teams Aomeba zone. We are not handling the weak side correctly because we aren’t following ball you man position principles when in zone. Good man principles still required.
You and Bone both have made good points. I was in a hurry and wrote dismissive responses to your thoughts initially...my bad.
You touched on two good approaches to dealing with dribble penetration 1) saggy man and 2) throwing in zone. My preference for Purdue is the man.
What I really like is the hard hedge and ball pressure on the passer to make the pass to the rolling center difficult. Unfortunately the no touch perimeter rules make that untenable.
She is sitting on the sofa right beside me watching IU and osu
I TOLD her that if IU wins it pretty much ensures Purdue the Big championship. She said I don't care I can't pull for those loosiers
As long as she distracts you from those long-winded philosophical engineering mathematical statistical posts ....
Ohhhhhhh can she. She is a good lady and sooooooo non analytical through math. We have a LOT of differences. She just said looking at the IU uniforms ..5 stars on your ass you are ssuch an elite basketball program..i just laugh. I expect her parents blame me.
she has an iu trustee rhat wanted her to work for iu..nice guy that c rean gave his IU things. She just hates the fan base
My wife's siblings placed bets on how short we would last ... HAHAHA ... we should collect after 28 years. But her parents loved me from the start.Ohhhhhhh can she. She is a good lady and sooooooo non analytical through math. We have a LOT of differences. She just said looking at the IU uniforms ..5 stars on your ass you are ssuch an elite basketball program..i just laugh. I expect her parents blame me.
OH .... WAIT FOR IT .... her sibling+spuses are ALL avid, emotionally wrecked, asshole IU fans .... and none have a single credit hour from any IU campus.
"spuses" = pussy spouses .... just sayin'
I think a big part of that was that we simply wore them down.
Down the stretch (last 2-4 minutes) IU was physically done. Plus, the averages were catching up with them. Earlier in the game they were hitting shots they normally don't hit.
No worries friend. I also much prefer what you stated - that Purdue play man. I am also a big fan of the hard hedge, but I think with Isaac, that's one weakness (among many, many strengths). We need Isaac on the floor as much as possible, so sacrificing a hard hedge to have him in the game is going to be a net positive for Purdue 90% of the time. If for some reason, we need to hard hedge, Haarms gives us better options there.
Boiler Up! Let's beat Maryland!
Haas has matured to a point where his only flaw is that agility which you just can’t overcome at 7’2” 290. I am happy to have him and love watching him when he dominates the blocks. Maybe we see that hard hedge come back in future years when we are more agile at the 5. I still worry that it’s gone though due to the perimeter defensive rules.
I wonder why no one on this board ever suggested that Purdue play a zone. You would think that someone would have thought of it. Oh, well. I think it's the perfect time for Painter to scrap his preparation plans for the remainder of the season and have all of his veterans learn to play a zone that he probably can't teach. It's a sure recipe for a championship.
We've won 17 straight and you're talkin bout playing zone?
But seriously, our defense is ranked top 10 on kenpom. Why would you want to change it? The IU game was close because we missed a lot of open 3s we had been making recently.
But seriously, our defense is ranked top 10 on kenpom. Why would you want to change it? The IU game was close because we missed a lot of open 3s we had been making recently.
probably be okay in the tourney...sometimes they let it get more physical then and the big boys are more crucial. Still, it comes down to the threat to score...adn if your perimeter player is not much of a threat...not much sense in worrying about him. True, Purdue will have more agility down the road, but not sure with the rules and the skill matt goes after he will also get the athlete that is skillful enough to play really aggressive, but that is down teh road for us to enjoy the puzzle next year and forward
