Man-to-man Defense

[MJ-79Boiler]

As I have repeatedly been saying . . Is this year's challenge and limiting success factor ! !

Does anyone think we can keep ANYONE out of the paint this year ?? Why we don't experiment with a zone (at least for a few minutes of a game), . .I do NOT know. We have played 4 straight games where we have proved that we can't keep people out of the paint, & have a hard time getting the rebound IF they miss. (even though we have one of the tallest front lines in the country.)

I personally think Matt is wrong on this, . . and being stubborn.

Georgia St just played a zone against big powerful Purdue, had us down double digits, outrebounded us, and would have beaten us had 3 players not fouled out of the game.

(Pros for using a 1-2-2 or 1-3-1 zone)
1.) Vince/Basil at the point could:
- Limit people driving into the paint ! . . and the easy points from freethrows.
- give us something we haven't had in awhile - turnovers ! . . as teams try to pass the rock from side to side (and each turnover would lead to dunks)
- make it tough to shoot high percentage 3s around the key.
- keep us out of foul trouble & EASY points for them (ie freethrows)
- generate shot clock violations, since offenses would find it difficult to get anything going in time

I know I am an old fart, ok . . but I still remember another zone defense with Kent Benson and Scott May, etc... with Bobby Wilkerson (my high school - so yes, I remember him) at the point and they won a national title.

I also seem to remember a recent Syracuse team which wasn't given a chance of doing anything, but they played a good zone defense and that worked out pretty well for them. No, the concept isn't new, but lots of programs like Duke, Kentucky and others can see the wisdom in adding it to their tool kit. Remember when we used to talk about the need for diving for loose balls ?? It was to get 1-3 extra possessions a game, right ? - which could ultimately be the difference in the game.

A periodic zone defense is no different ! If it saves us 3-5 fouls a game, 3-10 opposing freethrows/game, adds some rebounds, and lowers our opponent's offensive efficiency a little . . . it could make games easier to win.

I could be crazy . . . but my GUT tells me if we don't adjust to the way the game is being called in the paint, we exit this year's NCAA tournament (assuming we get there) by a team who drives into the paint and by doing so puts Isaac and Biggie on the bench - the EASY way !

Yes the final score with Nova looked close, but if you look under the hood of our team, we have just had 4 straight games where our man-to-man defense has made it hard to win.

This year's elephant in the room is our man-to-man defense.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

As I have repeatedly been saying . . Is this year's challenge and limiting success factor ! !

Does anyone think we can keep ANYONE out of the paint this year ?? Why we don't experiment with a zone (at least for a few minutes of a game), . .I do NOT know. We have played 4 straight games where we have proved that we can't keep people out of the paint, & have a hard time getting the rebound IF they miss. (even though we have one of the tallest front lines in the country.)

I personally think Matt is wrong on this, . . and being stubborn.

Georgia St just played a zone against big powerful Purdue, had us down double digits, outrebounded us, and would have beaten us had 3 players not fouled out of the game.

(Pros for using a 1-2-2 or 1-3-1 zone)
1.) Vince/Basil at the point could:
- Limit people driving into the paint ! . . and the easy points from freethrows.
- give us something we haven't had in awhile - turnovers ! . . as teams try to pass the rock from side to side (and each turnover would lead to dunks)
- make it tough to shoot high percentage 3s around the key.
- keep us out of foul trouble & EASY points for them (ie freethrows)
- generate shot clock violations, since offenses would find it difficult to get anything going in time

I know I am an old fart, ok . . but I still remember another zone defense with Kent Benson and Scott May, etc... with Bobby Wilkerson (my high school - so yes, I remember him) at the point and they won a national title.

I also seem to remember a recent Syracuse team which wasn't given a chance of doing anything, but they played a good zone defense and that worked out pretty well for them. No, the concept isn't new, but lots of programs like Duke, Kentucky and others can see the wisdom in adding it to their tool kit. Remember when we used to talk about the need for diving for loose balls ?? It was to get 1-3 extra possessions a game, right ? - which could ultimately be the difference in the game.

A periodic zone defense is no different ! If it saves us 3-5 fouls a game, 3-10 opposing freethrows/game, adds some rebounds, and lowers our opponent's offensive efficiency a little . . . it could make games easier to win.

I could be crazy . . . but my GUT tells me if we don't adjust to the way the game is being called in the paint, we exit this year's NCAA tournament (assuming we get there) by a team who drives into the paint and by doing so puts Isaac and Biggie on the bench - the EASY way !

Yes the final score with Nova looked close, but if you look under the hood of our team, we have just had 4 straight games where our man-to-man defense has made it hard to win.

This year's elephant in the room is our man-to-man defense.

Three things:
1) Painter made an adjustment last night when he started switching screens. I think that was much more effective in limiting drives than zone D would have been.
2) You mentioned Syracuse, but you don't see a backcourt of PJ, Spike, Dakota, etc playing in that Syracuse zone. Boeheim is all in on his system and recruits for it.
3) Did IU play zone defense in 76? I thought Knight was strictly a man coach back then.

 

[BBG]

As I have repeatedly been saying . . Is this year's challenge and limiting success factor ! !

Does anyone think we can keep ANYONE out of the paint this year ?? Why we don't experiment with a zone (at least for a few minutes of a game), . .I do NOT know. We have played 4 straight games where we have proved that we can't keep people out of the paint, & have a hard time getting the rebound IF they miss. (even though we have one of the tallest front lines in the country.)

I personally think Matt is wrong on this, . . and being stubborn.

Georgia St just played a zone against big powerful Purdue, had us down double digits, outrebounded us, and would have beaten us had 3 players not fouled out of the game.

(Pros for using a 1-2-2 or 1-3-1 zone)
1.) Vince/Basil at the point could:
- Limit people driving into the paint ! . . and the easy points from freethrows.
- give us something we haven't had in awhile - turnovers ! . . as teams try to pass the rock from side to side (and each turnover would lead to dunks)
- make it tough to shoot high percentage 3s around the key.
- keep us out of foul trouble & EASY points for them (ie freethrows)
- generate shot clock violations, since offenses would find it difficult to get anything going in time

I know I am an old fart, ok . . but I still remember another zone defense with Kent Benson and Scott May, etc... with Bobby Wilkerson (my high school - so yes, I remember him) at the point and they won a national title.

I also seem to remember a recent Syracuse team which wasn't given a chance of doing anything, but they played a good zone defense and that worked out pretty well for them. No, the concept isn't new, but lots of programs like Duke, Kentucky and others can see the wisdom in adding it to their tool kit. Remember when we used to talk about the need for diving for loose balls ?? It was to get 1-3 extra possessions a game, right ? - which could ultimately be the difference in the game.

A periodic zone defense is no different ! If it saves us 3-5 fouls a game, 3-10 opposing freethrows/game, adds some rebounds, and lowers our opponent's offensive efficiency a little . . . it could make games easier to win.

I could be crazy . . . but my GUT tells me if we don't adjust to the way the game is being called in the paint, we exit this year's NCAA tournament (assuming we get there) by a team who drives into the paint and by doing so puts Isaac and Biggie on the bench - the EASY way !

Yes the final score with Nova looked close, but if you look under the hood of our team, we have just had 4 straight games where our man-to-man defense has made it hard to win.

This year's elephant in the room is our man-to-man defense.

Nice post but disagree. Zone wouldn't of fixed last nights lack of effort at all. I understand we are all looking for a quick fix, but zone isn't it when the effort isn't on the court.

Plus lets not forget we are two people down and basically rotating 8 so fatigue will be a factor. Especially after the brutal game we had against Nova.

Oh and I am stealing this from boilerzz's post but: Georgia State score 56 points, had 19 turnovers, and shot just 41% from the floor. -- that tells me that man-to-man perhaps isn't the issue.

It may just be a simple thing of having an off night and nothing more.

 

[mryankee2397]

will someone please wake up vincent edwards and tell him there is a game going on?

 

[BoilerBiker]

Knight used zone (out of bounds situations) at tech , and apparently final year at IU

http://lubbockonline.com/stories/122206/col_122206033.shtml#.WDBSEnNOnqA

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

***

Oh and I am stealing this from boilerzz's post but: Georgia State score 56 points, had 19 turnovers, and shot just 41% from the floor. -- that tells me that man-to-man perhaps isn't the issue.

***.

One other take on this to amplify your point, BBG. Although overall, the defensive stats look good, IMO it seemed passive and out-of-position at times. Despite not shooting that well, GS was able for the most part control the tempo, and on key possessions there were too many breakdowns from the Boilers, which kept GS in control. When the intensity turned up on that end in that closing stretch, along with some Boilers finally knocking down a couple of shots, the game turned on a dime. The foul situation also bailed out Purdue.

Yes, I think some change-ups from time to time might work (whether that's a zone, traps, press could be an endless debate), you have to have the right personnel and put in the time to use it effectively.....CMP has tried zone before, so we know he's not absolutely against it. Maybe he starts mixing things up with man principles, maybe not. One thing is that whatever defense or scheme it is, whoever is on the floor needs to bring it with intensity.....collectively as a team, it wasn't there for a good part of the night for whatever reason. I'm hoping that's more the exception than the rule going forward.

"Mama said there'd be days like this."

 

[MJ-79Boiler]

Three things:
1) Painter made an adjustment last night when he started switching screens. I think that was much more effective in limiting drives than zone D would have been.
2) You mentioned Syracuse, but you don't see a backcourt of PJ, Spike, Dakota, etc playing in that Syracuse zone. Boeheim is all in on his system and recruits for it.
3) Did IU play zone defense in 76? I thought Knight was strictly a man coach back then.

 

[MJ-79Boiler]

I agree the switching helped a lot . . . when their 3 best players fouled out. (not sure we can count on that) Your second point, while true, is why you would put vince and basil at the point (for length or the highest percentage three pt shots.)

Did Knight play zone when they won the national championship? YES, he did. Not 100%, but when they went to it, opposing offenses struggled and Kent Benson was able to stay in the game with fouls. They also blocked out well and the defensive rebounds were very lopsided. Bobby Wilkerson, 6'7, was put at the top of the key and he ws a very disruptive player with his length ! Teams had to lob the ball over the top of him to switch sides of the court - kind of like what pj has to do when pressed. Some teams would lop over the middle of the zone, and that would make it easier for others to pick off those passes. AND, . . when they got the turnovers, Bobby Wilkerson (or in our case, Vince/Basil had the ball on a fast break which was automatic!)

My point is this. Good coaches adjust to the talent, play to their strengths (in our case it's height and defensive heart, but not quickness) and find ways to give themselves added possessions. (whether its through a press, some traps, etc..)

Matt is one of the few coaches who simply refuses to use it, . . because it's "Not who we are - it's not our identity!" Well, I for one, don't think an identity of getting beat in the paint is a good identity to have, but call me crazy.

If I am right, and this becomes THE issue this year, I will finally be ready for a new coach. He's simply getting outcoached. The non-conference is the time to experiment and find new weapons/schemes/concepts for the tougher games where we will need them & Freethrows and 2 foot shots are the easiest way to win a game, as WE all know after last night, right ? Why would you want your opponents shooting them all night?

The part that shocks me is that he is willing to use the latest fitness techniques, etc.. but I guess that doesn't force him to change much

 

[MJ-79Boiler]

Nice post but disagree. ....
It may just be a simple thing of having an off night and nothing more.

You may be right, but what percentage do you think they would have shot without all of the dunks and putbacks? I am guessing 30-35% without a lot of freethrows.

Time will tell, but I don't make comments like this often - Watching games in the arena feels like groundhog day to me !

 

[tjreese]

As I have repeatedly been saying . . Is this year's challenge and limiting success factor ! !

Does anyone think we can keep ANYONE out of the paint this year ?? Why we don't experiment with a zone (at least for a few minutes of a game), . .I do NOT know. We have played 4 straight games where we have proved that we can't keep people out of the paint, & have a hard time getting the rebound IF they miss. (even though we have one of the tallest front lines in the country.)

I personally think Matt is wrong on this, . . and being stubborn.

Georgia St just played a zone against big powerful Purdue, had us down double digits, outrebounded us, and would have beaten us had 3 players not fouled out of the game.

(Pros for using a 1-2-2 or 1-3-1 zone)
1.) Vince/Basil at the point could:
- Limit people driving into the paint ! . . and the easy points from freethrows.
- give us something we haven't had in awhile - turnovers ! . . as teams try to pass the rock from side to side (and each turnover would lead to dunks)
- make it tough to shoot high percentage 3s around the key.
- keep us out of foul trouble & EASY points for them (ie freethrows)
- generate shot clock violations, since offenses would find it difficult to get anything going in time

I know I am an old fart, ok . . but I still remember another zone defense with Kent Benson and Scott May, etc... with Bobby Wilkerson (my high school - so yes, I remember him) at the point and they won a national title.

I also seem to remember a recent Syracuse team which wasn't given a chance of doing anything, but they played a good zone defense and that worked out pretty well for them. No, the concept isn't new, but lots of programs like Duke, Kentucky and others can see the wisdom in adding it to their tool kit. Remember when we used to talk about the need for diving for loose balls ?? It was to get 1-3 extra possessions a game, right ? - which could ultimately be the difference in the game.

A periodic zone defense is no different ! If it saves us 3-5 fouls a game, 3-10 opposing freethrows/game, adds some rebounds, and lowers our opponent's offensive efficiency a little . . . it could make games easier to win.

I could be crazy . . . but my GUT tells me if we don't adjust to the way the game is being called in the paint, we exit this year's NCAA tournament (assuming we get there) by a team who drives into the paint and by doing so puts Isaac and Biggie on the bench - the EASY way !

Yes the final score with Nova looked close, but if you look under the hood of our team, we have just had 4 straight games where our man-to-man defense has made it hard to win.

This year's elephant in the room is our man-to-man defense.

First, before the first game was played, some on here knew that dribble containment would be the biggest concern with this team. Second, IU did not play zone and in the history of Knight and IU...Knight only played zone once or twice...almost as a joke. Third, being around Anderson you might recall Bob Fuller at Highland and his man zone (match/up). Bob would not allow any of the teams below JV to play anything but man since he knew they couldn't play a zone well without sound principles in man. Fourth, you may have noticed that Haas and his lack of quick movement is subbed early out on D and in on O with several minutes to go in the game to try to address that lack of foot speed with Matt being totally aware of a lack of quickness being a problem. Fifth, losing Taylor took away some length and lateral quickness Haas doesn't have as well as allowing others to rest. Sixth, man defense improves over time with a higher ceiling of improvement than zone. Seventh, this season as in the previous two refs are calling the fouls on the dribble at a higher rate than once the Big starts. Review the BTT game or later in the season compared to pre-season calls and you will notice the more physical play allowed. Eighth, a zone whether trapping or straight up is more effective when teams offense are in the early stages of being refined than later once players know each other better, better understanding of roles and chemistry. Ninth, a zone by the very nature whether straight up or match-up has an area of the court as priority 1 and ball second. Man has player 1 and ball second. Both zones and man combine tenets of zone and man...whether playing man or zone...both.

If you are playing match-up zone, then you are starting out in an area and matching up with the players in your area...essentially man defense with an attempt to keep your players on D in areas of the court and playing man in those. It is essentially man defense where your players attempt to stay regionally with the man concepts. Offenses do not use a zone offense against it, but attack it as a man defense. So tell me the difference between a match-up zone and a man defense with switching principles...other than initial alignment?

In a pure zone and not a match-up or man zone, the area of the court is a high priority. In that defense, there are more gaps and offensive teams may place people in gaps and overload the court..although court balance is always sought. If in gaps and the player receives the ball, the defender now is maybe not in as good of physical position as he would have been playing man. That player is more susceptible to driving the ball and getting into another gap to create open shots. In a pure zone, what do you do when a team places more than one offensive players where one defender is located? In a pure zone, how easy is it to block out people with the gaps (in offensive rebounding you go after the ball and always try to break any contact from a defender blocking out for pursuit so they can't feel you...this is already provided by a zone and so offensive rebounding is a concern.

Tenth, a zone by the very nature is more susceptible to the 3 ball than man unless man is really a Hank Iba sinking man...or sagging man and giving the three ball. Remember though...both zones and man D borrow tenets from each other and so the lines of demarcation are blurred.

Now, if your desire is to play Haas and Swanigan together for offense and yet you like a zone defense what doesa 1-2-2 zone do? First, there is a hole in the middle and I believe that a 2-1-2 alignment gap offense is effective against it...always trying to get the ball inside the hole. If you are coaching the zone D...where does Haas play...the back two? If he is in the back, how does he handle a pass from the wing to the baseline...how quickly does he cover that shot? If you don't play Haas, then is your man D as slow as when he is playing? Is the decision that Haas is an advantage on O and a disadvantage with quick whistles on D early in the season?

Going to a 1-3-1 or another odd front zone...this too I like an even front attack with an initial alignment of a 2-1-2 set. The three across defends the wings well but can have a lot of problems if the middle of the 3 allows entry around the FT line. It is also very susceptible to baseline play as there is only one defender back there. If you have good guards...I think they tear up a 1-3-1 as they handle the 3 across well and get the ball deep to the baseline...then maybe a pass to the post with the post looking opposite for an easy wing shot or dump to the short corner. That said, Bob Macy used to say that all zones look the same after the initial pass.

All that said, I do think a zone has a place in basketball and wish it were a very small part of Matt's arsenal. However, I fully understand why it is not. I think a zone offense ONLY has over a man defense the ability to force a more organized offensive approach from the other team that may be struggling in that game...as well as horrid shooting in that game. I have no problem trying it for a couple of possessions, but also know refining the man D will have bigger returns down the road.

I think Purdue is struggling in the matador defense required at this time of the year as well as adjusting to not having Basil until last night, losing Taylor and Cline MIA. So, although I do NOT think teh zone is the answer to Purdue's dribble containment...I'm not opposed to very limited use to give the offense a different look. However, I also understand Matt's desire for improvement and to play the best ball at the end of the season and a man defense being the most flexible, the most conforming to teh offense is that D and that is why most teams play it. The Orangemen are one of the few that it is their defense whereas other teams are usually a man D with some sprinkling of zone form time to time. Believe me we all share your concern for dribble containment...I'm just not sure that overrides the concerns with using a zone. Believe me is has nothing to do with Matt being stubborn as Matt wants to win more than any poster as he has invested a lot more into it. It has to do with Matt's belief system in general. Well, there you have it...what I do nto know.

 

[MJ-79Boiler]

First, before the first game was played, some on here knew that dribble containment would be the biggest concern with this team. . . . Well, there you have it...what I do nto know.

Your first comment said it all. If we don't address it with something other than "lets get better at it" I think our upside is limited (maybe . . . a sweet 16 game)

As for IU playing some zone in 1975 . . yes, he did ! I watched it. Did he play it all of the time, no he didn't. But my point was it was another tool he DID use and it provided turnovers, dunks, etc.. Just the fact that he and other top coaches use it at all and Matt won't says something.

To say Purdue is struggling in the current defense is an understatement and I believe it will continue as long as our opponents have a guard that can drive. Auburn beat Georgia St 18 pts.

PS My point is this shortfall isn't going away with practice - just like last year's guard issues with the press. Not trying to find some other kind of options in the non-conference is dumb. You and I both know other good teams will exploit it.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

Your first comment said it all. If we don't address it with something other than "lets get better at it" I think our upside is limited (maybe . . . a sweet 16 game)

As for IU playing some zone in 1975 . . yes, he did ! I watched it. Did he play it all of the time, no he didn't. But my point was it was another tool he DID use and it provided turnovers, dunks, etc.. Just the fact that he and other top coaches use it at all and Matt won't says something.

To say Purdue is struggling in the current defense is an understatement and I believe it will continue as long as our opponents have a guard that can drive. Auburn beat Georgia St 18 pts.

PS My point is this shortfall isn't going away with practice - just like last year's guard issues with the press. Not trying to find some other kind of options in the non-conference is dumb. You and I both know other good teams will exploit it.

If Painter were to implement a change of pace defense to keep drivers from getting to the basket, I'd much rather see him go with a pack line than a zone. I think that pack line would be a much easier transition for his players, as it is a very sound man defense that shares a lot of advantages with conservative zone defenses.

 

[MJ-79Boiler]

If Painter were to implement a change of pace defense to keep drivers from getting to the basket, I'd much rather see him go with a pack line than a zone. I think that pack line would be a much easier transition for his players, as it is a very sound man defense that shares a lot of advantages with conservative zone defenses.

You may be right, since UVA, Arizona and others seem to make it work - just know we need an adjustment to a glaring problem and hope we use the non-conference season to address it

 

[tjreese]

Your first comment said it all. If we don't address it with something other than "lets get better at it" I think our upside is limited (maybe . . . a sweet 16 game)

As for IU playing some zone in 1975 . . yes, he did ! I watched it. Did he play it all of the time, no he didn't. But my point was it was another tool he DID use and it provided turnovers, dunks, etc.. Just the fact that he and other top coaches use it at all and Matt won't says something.

To say Purdue is struggling in the current defense is an understatement and I believe it will continue as long as our opponents have a guard that can drive. Auburn beat Georgia St 18 pts.

PS My point is this shortfall isn't going away with practice - just like last year's guard issues with the press. Not trying to find some other kind of options in the non-conference is dumb. You and I both know other good teams will exploit it.

I do not recall knight playing it then, but do recall a few possessions over a decade later...and it was as much surprise to Knight as to others. You can make a man have a LOT of zone looks as man is very flexible. Again, my hope is that this year like the previous two or three, refs do not bail out drivers as much during the conference play as they do in preseason. If they don't that helps Purdue...if they continue it hurts Purdue. We shall see. FWIW,Purdue D is already much more position D than when the baby boilers were playing.

The question is how much concern for the three ball versus the drive and is the problem of rebounding out of a zone and giving up a more open threes less of a concern than the drive? All judgement. You always give up something to try to gain something and play the statistics of each...

 

[Dakota Girl]

I do not recall knight playing it then, but do recall a few possessions over a decade later...and it was as much surprise to Knight as to others. You can make a man have a LOT of zone looks as man is very flexible. Again, my hope is that this year like the previous two or three, refs do not bail out drivers as much during the conference play as they do in preseason. If they don't that helps Purdue...if they continue it hurts Purdue. We shall see. FWIW,Purdue D is already much more position D than when the baby boilers were playing.

The question is how much concern for the three ball versus the drive and is the problem of rebounding out of a zone and giving up a more open threes less of a concern than the drive? All judgement. You always give up something to try to gain something and play the statistics of each...

MJ,
I'm not going to say that zone can't work, it can. At the same time you can not say that it will work better just because it is different than what is being done now.
In fact, because zone requires strong man principles to function correctly, it is logical that we would suffer from the same deficiencies we suffer from now if we play zone.
When the ball moves into the high post what happens? The zone must collapse.
Then the ball is kicked to the wing forcing whole zone to shift toward the ball.
Then the wing skips to the opposite wing or to the top who skips to the opposite corner. Now the zone is in scramble close out mode either giving up an open three or a shot fake and drive into the paint.
There is no shortcut to good defense. If all it took was to play zone, no one would ever play man.

 

[MJ-79Boiler]

While I understand what you guys are saying, it hasn't changed my mind.

1.) We need either some kind of zone defense option or look alike to keep "Driving" teams out of the paint or we might as well give up our height advantage from the start. Every good team will make it their top priority to have Isaac and Biggie sitting on the bench

2.) We do not have any front court depth

3.) Without our 2 best players (Isaac and Biggie) we are toast against good teams

4.) A zone, even if used sporadically, throws opponents out of their offensive rythmn - mix it up a bit ! - other good teams DO. Even tonight, I see Wisconsin using a . . zone & coming back to win a game because they did. Georgia St even used zone against us & it darn near beat us and it was painfully obvious that they would have shot much poorer from deep than they were under the bucket &

5.) Yes, I understand there are trade-offs and that the officiating MAY change later in the year, but the wise man prepares for the worse and we only get one non-conference season to get ready. If we wait and we either can't improve or the refs don't change, . . I believe (but don't want !) it to bite us in the NCAA tourney when we could have prepared for it.

6.) Last year almost all of us knew the press was the issue & we saw NO improvement throughout the year. Well, . . It's groundhog day ! If it happens again, I will be ready for a coaching change. (and for what its worth, I have NEVER before even hinted that Matt should be replaced.) Good coaches optimize the impact of their talent and minimize the impact of their weaknesses. Our current approach doesn't do this.

 

[Dakota Girl]

While I understand what you guys are saying, it hasn't changed my mind.

1.) We need either some kind of zone defense option or look alike to keep "Driving" teams out of the paint or we might as well give up our height advantage from the start. Every good team will make it their top priority to have Isaac and Biggie sitting on the bench

2.) We do not have any front court depth

3.) Without our 2 best players (Isaac and Biggie) we are toast against good teams

4.) A zone, even if used sporadically, throws opponents out of their offensive rythmn - mix it up a bit ! - other good teams DO. Even tonight, I see Wisconsin using a . . zone & coming back to win a game because they did. Georgia St even used zone against us & it darn near beat us and it was painfully obvious that they would have shot much poorer from deep than they were under the bucket &

5.) Yes, I understand there are trade-offs and that the officiating MAY change later in the year, but the wise man prepares for the worse and we only get one non-conference season to get ready. If we wait and we either can't improve or the refs don't change, . . I believe (but don't want !) it to bite us in the NCAA tourney when we could have prepared for it.

6.) Last year almost all of us knew the press was the issue & we saw NO improvement throughout the year. Well, . . It's groundhog day ! If it happens again, I will be ready for a coaching change. (and for what its worth, I have NEVER before even hinted that Matt should be replaced.) Good coaches optimize the impact of their talent and minimize the impact of their weaknesses. Our current approach doesn't do this.

You have stated clearly that your mind is made up. So this may be on deaf ears but... On the surface being multiple is not a bad thing. But because zone and man share the same principles, an inability to play man will translate to a poor zone performance as well. Switching to zone to cover bad man only works at levels of ball where the offenses don't know how to attack zone.
Note that we trashed Nova's 2-3 when they tried it. And as soon as we got a little energy against GS and knocked down a couple of the threes they were giving us willingly in the first 35 minutes it was over. It's just not the savior.

 

[tjreese]

While I understand what you guys are saying, it hasn't changed my mind.

1.) We need either some kind of zone defense option or look alike to keep "Driving" teams out of the paint or we might as well give up our height advantage from the start. Every good team will make it their top priority to have Isaac and Biggie sitting on the bench

2.) We do not have any front court depth

3.) Without our 2 best players (Isaac and Biggie) we are toast against good teams

4.) A zone, even if used sporadically, throws opponents out of their offensive rythmn - mix it up a bit ! - other good teams DO. Even tonight, I see Wisconsin using a . . zone & coming back to win a game because they did. Georgia St even used zone against us & it darn near beat us and it was painfully obvious that they would have shot much poorer from deep than they were under the bucket &

5.) Yes, I understand there are trade-offs and that the officiating MAY change later in the year, but the wise man prepares for the worse and we only get one non-conference season to get ready. If we wait and we either can't improve or the refs don't change, . . I believe (but don't want !) it to bite us in the NCAA tourney when we could have prepared for it.

6.) Last year almost all of us knew the press was the issue & we saw NO improvement throughout the year. Well, . . It's groundhog day ! If it happens again, I will be ready for a coaching change. (and for what its worth, I have NEVER before even hinted that Matt should be replaced.) Good coaches optimize the impact of their talent and minimize the impact of their weaknesses. Our current approach doesn't do this.

I'll agree with Dakota and add a few more...although I'm not sure my explanations between zone and man previously are understood sufficiently by some or just opposed without an inkling of reasons supplied. Therefore I won't go into the nuances of the two and the hybrid...match-up. 1) A pure zone will have gaps and allow much entry into the paint. A matchup as I have previously described is a man defense with switching rules to keep you regionally in a preferred location of the court. It will have some of the same deficiencies as man with switching rules. 2) Losing Taylor has certainly made depth in the preferred 4 and 5 alignment thinner. 3) any team that loses their two best players will usually be toast against good teams...just the way it is. 4) I have no issue in testing a team's organized offensive approach to a zone sometimes. I wasn't aware of Wisconsin using a zone...and just because an announcer may say something doesn't mean it was. By the same token I cannot state that Wisconsin did not use a zone either, I never saw the game. GS played a match-up zone...again, not much difference in man. Had Purdue shot decent, GS wouldn't even be in the conversation. 5) In preparing for the worse, do you suspect that both a man and pure zone grow in effectiveness equally over a season? Are Purdue players suited better for a zone or man and which defense is the most adaptable to the opposing players...the one with priority to court location or the one with priority to opposing players in general? 6) I suspect the press will be less of an issue and maybe not an issue other than eating clock this year than last. I suspect the press will not be as effective against Purdue this year...like all the other years Matt has been at Purdue with the exception of the last two years. Coaching understanding hasn't changed and so what did?

I realize this is my opinion, but perhaps there are others that might get a new thought or adaptation to a previous thought with the few comments I made above. Bottom, line I wish Matt had in his tool box some form of a zone, but I fully understand why he doesn't and I'm not sure many for a zone do understand why he doesn't...

I'll add that Purdue's strength is down low on the offensive end...it shouldn't surprise people that other teams try to plan the best way for their talent to make problems inside for Purdue. That also should mean that a different team's personnel will not have the same issues with the same defense used against Purdue. Interesting that I talk about personnel being the concern in how you play D rather than a given D that may or may not be as adaptable...

 

[MJ-79Boiler]

Switching to zone to cover bad man only works at levels of ball where the offenses don't know how to attack zone

Disagree ! I just watched another game which underscored the issue for me. (Creighton vs 'Ol Miss in the Paradise Jam championship.)

As I am sure you know by now, Creighton is a good team and has already beaten Wisconsin and North Carolina St. In their last game they put up 112 pts.

Bottom line: At the beginning of the game it was crystal clear they couldn't keep Creighton out of the paint. So,..'Ol Miss used a 1-3-1 and 2-3 zone on them most of the game and it NEGATIVELY impacted their offense, even though McDermott & his team knows exactly how to attack it. At one point, 'Ol Miss had them down 11 pts. While Creighton rallied to win in the last 4-5 minutes, the changes clearly took them out of their comfort zone and created turnovers as they tried to force the ball inside. In the end,Creighton changed their offense & used stretch 4s to hit a LOT of 3sin the 2nd half to pull it out - 2-4 pt game until very late. Without the zone, 'Ol MIss had NO chance & would have had their big fouled out !

More examples of good coaches willing to change things up to minimize their weaknesses and to compete with a good team. If Creighton's stretch 4s (now ranked # 12) hadn't shot over 50% from 3 at the end of the game they would have lost this game ! When we have a mismatch that could eliminate our best players, I would take that chance.

 

[MJ-79Boiler]

1) A pure zone will have gaps and allow much entry into the paint. 2) Losing Taylor has certainly made depth in the preferred 4 and 5 alignment thinner. 3) any team that loses their two best players will usually be toast against good teams...just the way it is. 4) I have no issue in testing a team's organized offensive approach to a zone sometimes. 5) In preparing for the worse, do you suspect that both a man and pure zone grow in effectiveness equally over a season? Are Purdue players suited better for a zone or man ?

Response:
1.) Are you saying a zone will create gaps bigger than the ones which allow a guard to take the ball to the rim ? I have seen enough that I would test other approaches to see if something works better. That's just common sense when you can't stop something
2.) Noone disagrees - more reason to play a defense that keeps them out of foul trouble
3.) That is my point - Do you want to play pure man or play something that allows them to stay on the court twice as long?
4.) Agree, change can be good at times, but I am sure we will never know for sure (Matt's comment: " zone? that's not who we are") I guess this makes my prediction for the NCAA easier - 1 game in the sweet 16 at best, unless they change. At worst, we exit before then . . Again. However, our talent is better than that
5.) We will never know with this team, but I am betting slow bigs can play better zone/hybrid defenses than man-to-man, and . . for longer periods

We have different viewpoints on this . . obviously. That doesn't make you wrong. I just can't see my way past the layups, fouls and putback dunks from mediocre teams right now. Maybe it will get better before we play better teams. We can always hope, right ?

 

[tjreese]

Response:
1.) Are you saying a zone will create gaps bigger than the ones which allow a guard to take the ball to the rim ? I have seen enough that I would test other approaches to see if something works better. That's just common sense when you can't stop something
2.) Noone disagrees - more reason to play a defense that keeps them out of foul trouble
3.) That is my point - Do you want to play pure man or play something that allows them to stay on the court twice as long?
4.) Agree, change can be good at times, but I am sure we will never know for sure (Matt's comment: " zone? that's not who we are") I guess this makes my prediction for the NCAA easier - 1 game in the sweet 16 at best, unless they change. At worst, we exit before then . . Again. However, our talent is better than that
5.) We will never know with this team, but I am betting slow bigs can play better zone/hybrid defenses than man-to-man, and . . for longer periods

We have different viewpoints on this . . obviously. That doesn't make you wrong. I just can't see my way past the layups, fouls and putback dunks from mediocre teams right now. Maybe it will get better before we play better teams. We can always hope, right ?

I'm drawing a distinction between pure zone and match-up. I believe most wanting a zone want a pure zone. I'm biased..I am aware of that. I'm biased because I understand how flexible it is and like a taylored defense to the offensive team. I believe a zone can be tailored, but less than a man defense. A zone by its very nature starts out with gaps. Its priority is court area and man's priority is player rather than court...all adjust for ball location. If I'm on offense against a zone I can place players close to the defenders making their zone closer to playing man....I would never match-up myself, but just using that as an example. What I would do is place people into the gaps of the zone...which could be considered to a degree similar to the effects of overloading the court, but with court balance. The inherent gaps in the zone would be located with the players I wanted in the open gaps against the defenders I wanted them to play against...relative to the court location. If going for a last second shot, I would definitely overload the court against a zone if I were having any difficulty with a gap attack as that would ensure that someone would be open since I placed more offensive players in the area of the court occupied by the defense. I think a lot of people remember high school years ago and saying you don't dribble against a zone...well, you do, but you won't take it to the rim. You may dribble into the gaps and create a wide open look that is very makeable although not a lay-up.

As I said I'm biased towards a man...I know that. I'm not opposed to trying a zone very sparingly through a season. No matter what you or I think...most coaches that get paid to produce... play man...or match-up and so they must have their reasons to make MAN the main or essentially only defense...fully aware that some coaches make man a rare occurence. Every defense has advantages and disadvantages inherent in the approach and effectiveness a function of the offensive team in opposition as much as the defense chosen. Over the long haul...the one that will be most improved is man, but that said I could be swayed to a zone very infrequently and for probably reasons never considered by many.

 

[Dakota Girl]

Disagree ! I just watched another game which underscored the issue for me. (Creighton vs 'Ol Miss in the Paradise Jam championship.)

As I am sure you know by now, Creighton is a good team and has already beaten Wisconsin and North Carolina St. In their last game they put up 112 pts.

Bottom line: At the beginning of the game it was crystal clear they couldn't keep Creighton out of the paint. So,..'Ol Miss used a 1-3-1 and 2-3 zone on them most of the game and it NEGATIVELY impacted their offense, even though McDermott & his team knows exactly how to attack it. At one point, 'Ol Miss had them down 11 pts. While Creighton rallied to win in the last 4-5 minutes, the changes clearly took them out of their comfort zone and created turnovers as they tried to force the ball inside. In the end,Creighton changed their offense & used stretch 4s to hit a LOT of 3sin the 2nd half to pull it out - 2-4 pt game until very late. Without the zone, 'Ol MIss had NO chance & would have had their big fouled out !

More examples of good coaches willing to change things up to minimize their weaknesses and to compete with a good team. If Creighton's stretch 4s (now ranked # 12) hadn't shot over 50% from 3 at the end of the game they would have lost this game ! When we have a mismatch that could eliminate our best players, I would take that chance.

OK MJ you found an example. Keep in mind that Ol Miss is averaging 21 wins a season the last three years so not a cupcake.
Do you think that Creighton will struggle with the same zones in March. I doubt it.
Regardless, I am enjoying the debate. I would like to agree with you but that would make us both wrong.

 

[MJ-79Boiler]

No matter what you or I think...most coaches that get paid to produce... play man...or match-up

I think those days are changing - more and more are now experimenting with a wide variety of zones to throw offenses off. Did you happen to catch Indiana playing a 2-3 zone tonight in an attempt to come back and beat Ft Wayne ?? It almost worked. Another great example of a team/coach trying to shut down the paint, but I guess they won't be ranked number 3 any more so they probably aren't a good team.

Stay tuned - I think Auburn will provide more examples tomorrow. If you watched tonight's game, you saw a glimpse of our future - guards and good ball handling forwards driving and "leaning" into our bigs to pick up cheap and easy fouls & freethrows.

 

[MJ-79Boiler]

OK MJ you found an example. .

Cute !

Example 2: Did you catch Indiana playing a 2-3 zone tonight in an attempt to pull their game out ?? It almost worked ! Would you consider them a good team?

Did you catch our cheap fouls tonight as people just kept leaning into them (they aren't very agile)

More examples of what I am talking about tomorrow when Auburn drives into the paint all night. Stay tuned

 

[tjreese]

I think those days are changing - more and more are now experimenting with a wide variety of zones to throw offenses off. Did you happen to catch Indiana playing a 2-3 zone tonight in an attempt to come back and beat Ft Wayne ?? It almost worked. Another great example of a team/coach trying to shut down the paint, but I guess they won't be ranked number 3 any more so they probably aren't a good team.

Stay tuned - I think Auburn will provide more examples tomorrow. If you watched tonight's game, you saw a glimpse of our future - guards and good ball handling forwards driving and "leaning" into our bigs to pick up cheap and easy fouls & freethrows.

I may watch it tonight. I just caught the last few minutes where IPFW hit an open 3 and then missed a few more open 3's. I did hear Shawn talking about zone, but have no idea if IPFW had any 3 pt shooters. What I do know is the coach you mention as another great example loss. I'm guessing it was more of his bad coaching decisions that loss the game, but I don't know for sure. I do know he had substantially more talent than IPFW and got beat. I didn't see flook shots, I also saw wide open shots that IPFW missed that would have beaten IU sooner than later after losing two players to fouls. How does IU not win the game with the talent that IU has...especially when IPFW loses two players and you know they can't be deep? I'm going to try to watch it to see what I can learn if I have time. Do you have an idea why IU got beat? The little I saw, it appeared that IPFW played better D...but again my sampling of minutes was small.

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

I may watch it tonight. I just caught the last few minutes where IPFW hit an open 3 and then missed a few more open 3's. I did hear Shawn talking about zone, but have no idea if IPFW had any 3 pt shooters. What I do know is the coach you mention as another great example loss. I'm guessing it was more of his bad coaching decisions that loss the game, but I don't know for sure. I do know he had substantially more talent than IPFW and got beat. I didn't see flook shots, I also saw wide open shots that IPFW missed that would have beaten IU sooner than later after losing two players to fouls. How does IU not win the game with the talent that IU has...especially when IPFW loses two players and you know they can't be deep? I'm going to try to watch it to see what I can learn if I have time. Do you have an idea why IU got beat? The little I saw, it appeared that IPFW played better D...but again my sampling of minutes was small.

TJ,

Indiana trailed 62-49 and then went to the 2-3, which stopped a lot of the dribble penetration that was killing them all night. Regulation ended @ 65 all. The OT period seemed like a battle of fatigue.....each team hit a 3-pt FG early on, and then the Mastadons sealed it with some free throws. In between, there were missed FT's on both ends, a lot of back and forth with not much production, some TO's and plenty of missed shots. IPFW won it with their defense IMO. They got plenty of help from the Hoosiers, but I don't think many teams will hold Indiana to 68 points for 45 minutes of action.

I know things didn't work out for him at Purdue, but good for Bryson Scott and the rest of his team.

 

[Dryfly88]

The IU zone without any doubt changed the game. Prior to the zone IPFW was killing them with penetration.

I'm not getting into anything beyond that or suggesting PU can duplicate that result. But there is no doubt that in that game last night a change in defense dramatically impacted the game.

 

[tjreese]

TJ,

Indiana trailed 62-49 and then went to the 2-3, which stopped a lot of the dribble penetration that was killing them all night. Regulation ended @ 65 all. The OT period seemed like a battle of fatigue.....each team hit a 3-pt FG early on, and then the Mastadons sealed it with some free throws. In between, there were missed FT's on both ends, a lot of back and forth with not much production, some TO's and plenty of missed shots. IPFW won it with their defense IMO. They got plenty of help from the Hoosiers, but I don't think many teams will hold Indiana to 68 points for 45 minutes of action.

I know things didn't work out for him at Purdue, but good for Bryson Scott and the rest of his team.

With all the talent IU has over IPFW, did IPFW just play better defense than IU? How did they beat them? How did they hold the offense of IU to so few of points and yet IPFW without the firepower score more? IU has LOT of talent...what did IPFW do to hold down IU's offensive?

 

[BoilerBiker]

Noticed their defensive change too while channel switching during our breaks.

After iu's change, ipfw hit 1 field goal over a nearly 10 minute span.
They could have won by 20+ in regulation (!)

 

[tjreese]

The IU zone without any doubt changed the game. Prior to the zone IPFW was killing them with penetration.

I'm not getting into anything beyond that or suggesting PU can duplicate that result. But there is no doubt that in that game last night a change in defense dramatically impacted the game.

So...again not seeing the game...was IU's offense affected by the D it was playing? I wouldn't use scoring as a measure, but movement and good shots as a metric. Sometimes the ball goes in and sometimes it doesn't. It wouldn't be the first time one side of the ball has an impact on the other...."IF" that was the case...again not knowing...

 

[tjreese]

Noticed that too while channel switching during our breaks.

After iu's change, ipfw hit 1 field goal over a nearly 10 minute span.
They could have won by 20+ in regulation (!)

Again, not seeing the game...did IPFW go into a prevent losing type offense? Being up that much and IU being in a zone allowed IPFW to eat clock every possession. Whether they did that or not...I don't know. I know if I had a less talented team and was ahead...I would love to see a zone instead of them turning the horses loose and creating more possessions. I guess if I can see it (still have Nova to see on TV and compare to Mackey) I might have a better feel. Just wondering what people saw as opposed to scoring numbers...

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

So...again not seeing the game...was IU's offense affected by the D it was playing? I wouldn't use scoring as a measure, but movement and good shots as a metric. Sometimes the ball goes in and sometimes it doesn't. It wouldn't be the first time one side of the ball has an impact on the other...."IF" that was the case...again not knowing...

It was a combination of things I think.....from what I saw on the BTN replay.....didn't see the entire game. Because IPFW had a working lead most of the game, I think Indiana was flustered and rushed their offensive sets some. IPFW kept the defensive pressure on though as well. They also did not shoot well, took some poor shots, and left a lot from the FT line along with being plagued with Purdue's bugaboo....turnovers. In addition, Anunoby was apparently under the weather and only played about 13 minutes. At least as much self-inflicted pain as what IPFW was doing, but I think if Indiana had played the zone the entire game.....it likely would have been a different outcome.

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

Hey TJ, I forget, did you see the game?

Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family....

 

[tjreese]

It was a combination of things I think.....from what I saw on the BTN replay.....didn't see the entire game. Because IPFW had a working lead most of the game, I think Indiana was flustered and rushed their offensive sets some. IPFW kept the defensive pressure on though as well. They also did not shoot well, took some poor shots, and left a lot from the FT line along with being plagued with Purdue's bugaboo....turnovers. In addition, Anunoby was apparently under the weather and only played about 13 minutes. At least as much self-inflicted pain as what IPFW was doing, but I think if Indiana had played the zone the entire game.....it likely would have been a different outcome.

you could be right...I don't know. I do know this...less possessions favor the less talented team. IPFW would gladly play every game against a more talented team with one possession each if they could and so less possession favor the less talented team. I also know that if I'm behind with IU having more talent allows the IPFW to eat clock and can become a problem in having enough clock to win for IU. Additionally, I've always stated that basketball has a strong mental component to it and allowing IPFW to eat clock (if that happpened) favors IPFW mentally as well. Lastly, some teams increase the pressure to wake teams up offensively if sluggish. I admit I don't know what went on as I have not seen the game...NOR do I know the particular skill sets IPFW and IU has. Did IU not have enought athleticism to keep IPFW out of the paint or just needed a kiock in the a$$ to get them to play harder?

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

you could be right...I don't know. I do know this...less possessions favor the less talented team. IPFW would gladly play every game against a more talented team with one possession each if they could and so less possession favor the less talented team. I also know that if I'm behind with IU having more talent allows the IPFW to eat clock and can become a problem in having enough clock to win for IU. Additionally, I've always stated that basketball has a strong mental component to it and allowing IPFW to eat clock (if that happpened) favors IPFW mentally as well. Lastly, some teams increase the pressure to wake teams up offensively if sluggish. I admit I don't know what went on as I have not seen the game...NOR do I know the particular skill sets IPFW and IU has. Did IU not have enought athleticism to keep IPFW out of the paint or just needed a kiock in the a$$ to get them to play harder?

Frankly TJ, I think it was just one of those nights....I also don't think it was a "talent" issue, but more of what was working/not working this particular game. IPFW didn't shoot that well either and didn't get to the line much.....more in OT than in regulation. Turnovers and poor FT shooting were probably the two biggest factors (among others) for Indiana's loss. Some of the TO's were forced, some weren't. Guessing, I think a full squad Indiana team would win 9/10 times, at least. JMO

 

[tjreese]

Frankly TJ, I think it was just one of those nights....I also don't think it was a "talent" issue, but more of what was working/not working this particular game. IPFW didn't shoot that well either and didn't get to the line much.....more in OT than in regulation. Turnovers and poor FT shooting were probably the two biggest factors (among others) for Indiana's loss. Some of the TO's were forced, some weren't. Guessing, I think a full squad Indiana team would win 9/10 times, at least. JMO

I'm more of a 98-2 win for IU. last nikght must have been one of the two...Now we get the see the boilers again tonight...ready for it...

 

[Dakota Girl]

I think those days are changing - more and more are now experimenting with a wide variety of zones to throw offenses off. Did you happen to catch Indiana playing a 2-3 zone tonight in an attempt to come back and beat Ft Wayne ?? It almost worked. Another great example of a team/coach trying to shut down the paint, but I guess they won't be ranked number 3 any more so they probably aren't a good team.

Stay tuned - I think Auburn will provide more examples tomorrow. If you watched tonight's game, you saw a glimpse of our future - guards and good ball handling forwards driving and "leaning" into our bigs to pick up cheap and easy fouls & freethrows.

And they lost. If you don't play man D well you won't play zone well. Especially late in the year when every offense has seen enough of zone and just automatically moves it, collapses it, and shreds it.
I don't mind a zone. I have taught zones. I just think you have to get your man d right first.

 

[MJ-79Boiler]

If you don't play man D well you won't play zone well.

BINGO ! ! I don't think this team will play EITHER well ! The difference is that a man-to-man approach will have our 2 best players sitting on the pine longer and ANY kind of zone will make teams hit jump shots to beat us instead of layups, freethrows and dunks (on both follow-up/rebounds and back door on our guards)

I just think that's dumb . . dumb . . . dumb !

 

[Dakota Girl]

BINGO ! ! I don't think this team will play EITHER well ! The difference is that a man-to-man approach will have our 2 best players sitting on the pine longer and ANY kind of zone will make teams hit jump shots to beat us instead of layups, freethrows and dunks (on both follow-up/rebounds and back door on our guards)

I just think that's dumb . . dumb . . . dumb !

OK. I get your point. I just think the D will improve. This is never going to be a killer D in any form but it can be good enough if the O is solid. We shall see.

 

[boilerzz]

BINGO ! ! I don't think this team will play EITHER well ! The difference is that a man-to-man approach will have our 2 best players sitting on the pine longer and ANY kind of zone will make teams hit jump shots to beat us instead of layups, freethrows and dunks (on both follow-up/rebounds and back door on our guards)

I just think that's dumb . . dumb . . . dumb !

22nd in KenPom defensive efficiency would suggest otherwise.