CMP does some switching for on-ball screens. I don’t think we see much switching with off-ball screen actions. In general, it’s gotta be about the strength and speed or personnel to fight through a screen and get over it. For all the praise he gets for offensive planning we do seem to be more one dimensional in defensive scheming, but I’m not sure how much of that CMP or the length/speed/strength issues that factor into a defensive game plan.When I first started reading your post, I thought, “Hey this guy gets it!”. I’m nodding in agreement with each bullet. Then I read you dis each of these points. Your fact-based statement is that they are “excuses”? Wow! You really didn’t explain your point. May I ask what hell males you think a zone works in todays game?
Now, I’m no expert on defenses, but isnt Purdue’s switching man-to-man very close to a zone, but with much better rebounding capability?
t, t
NBA draft
- Thread starter rgarlitz
- Start date
I'm reluctant to type much on the zone or I would have offered thought a few post before. About 3 or 4 years ago I shared with Nag (RIP fellow Boiler) a LOT of posts on zone and man. Switching is close to a "match-up" zone that most people see in college. In high school you see more pure zone and can find that in college as well, just not played as much as in high school. The match-up zone in Indiana is tied to Bill Green who used to coach Marion High School. Bill gave credit to his thoughts after seeing a "rover back" on D in a Purdue football game year before. Bob Fuller who started in Illinois as a high school coach was coach at Anderson HIghland and ran a man-zone. He would only allow man to be played from Freshman on down because he knew the man principles were needed to be able to play a man zone. However, I had an old defensive book published back in 60s that Gerald Manahan used in the early 60s that was another hybrid of the match-up zone and I'm drawing a blank on the name. I since have given that book back to his son Pat (attorney in Delphi & owner of Scoreboard restaurant in Monticello, IN) and so I can't look up the name of the zone, but a brother-in-law played it for Gerald in the early 60s. (https://dchsparnassus.com/uncategor...nducted-into-indiana-basketball-hall-of-fame/ )When I first started reading your post, I thought, “Hey this guy gets it!”. I’m nodding in agreement with each bullet. Then I read you dis each of these points. Your fact-based statement is that they are “excuses”? Wow! You really didn’t explain your point. May I ask what hell males you think a zone works in todays game?
Now, I’m no expert on defenses, but isnt Purdue’s switching man-to-man very close to a zone, but with much better rebounding capability?
t, t
You attack a match-up zone as though it were man, but you take advantage of a pure zone in additional ways. In man some teams switch horizontal screens ...guard to guard...big to big. Some will allow some vertical switching as well and that sometimes creates a physical mismatch. The idea behind a "match-up zone" was to "match-up" in man while trying to place your players where they are best defending...guards on top rather than down low where they let the big defend the guard and they take the big when on the perimeter. Quite often you can see the PG "point" out who he has so the others can match up as the offensive players come down the court. Another way you might recognize is the "unforced switch where an offensive player "hands off" an offensive player as he leaves the defenders preferred area to defend and then picks up a different offensive player closer to his preferred area to defend. Offensive teams might try to send a few cutters through the lane hopeful someone misses a "hand-off" and leaves a player open. So, there is a lot of similarity between a match-up zone and man when switching in man. I sometimes think Purdue needs to fight through the screens a bit more and less switching. I think it was North Texas that gave us some problems knowing Purdue switched everything and counted on getting the player they wanted against the defender they wanted.
A pure zone is what the typical fan is familiar and it is different than a match-up zone or man when switching 1-4 positions. There the D tried to defend a general area more than a particular player, but you will see a pure zone compensate when more than one offensive player enters the area a defender has. In a pure zone...many zones look the same after a couple of shifts due to player and ball movement. You're always trying to drop that defender on weakside to rebound. Not sure if I helped or not? Man switching 1-4 and match-up zone very similar (not exact though) and pure zone different. When someone talks about Purdue playing zone, I consider them to generally speak of a pure zone with more focus on area than player
Last edited:
Try watching something other than the B1G. Zones of all types work a lot in the college game. Miami showed how effective it can be even against pro's. If all you watch is the B1G I can see why you might question the effectiveness. Our conference is a terrible example of "today's game" as you call it. One of the reasons we haven't had a national champion in 23 years.When I first started reading your post, I thought, “Hey this guy gets it!”. I’m nodding in agreement with each bullet. Then I read you dis each of these points. Your fact-based statement is that they are “excuses”? Wow! You really didn’t explain your point. May I ask what hell males you think a zone works in todays game?
Now, I’m no expert on defenses, but isnt Purdue’s switching man-to-man very close to a zone, but with much better rebounding capability?
t, t
You could be right. Not going to argue, but you would think that a very good coach like Painter, or any of the many others would jump all over some kind of defense that would bring even one more win. Just say’in.
Lots of other great coaches do mix in a zone on occasion.You could be right. Not going to argue, but you would think that a very good coach like Painter, or any of the many others would jump all over some kind of defense that would bring even one more win. Just say’in.
Like say when someone is shredding you for 35, running the same play over and over and over again…
Good coaches do mix it in. But you have to watch another conference besides B1G to see it. ACC and Big 12 are good examples. Self uses a zone very effectively throughout the season. He's a MTM guy for the great majority of the game, but when he needs to give the other team a different look he has it in the tool bag. That's all most of us "zone guys" have ever asked of CMP. He just refuses to do it and last year during an interview used the "excuse" that the B1G is a MTM league. Not really the best argument when said conference hasn't had a champion in 23 years and counting.You could be right. Not going to argue, but you would think that a very good coach like Painter, or any of the many others would jump all over some kind of defense that would bring even one more win. Just say’in.
Part of the reason Matt isn't probably going to try a zone again is that when he played it...it was horrible. I personally think the way it was played was a huge issue. Matt also has never had trouble with a zone and so that probably sways him a bit. Teams that played it in the past several years usually don't stay in it long against Purdue. Again, many teams play a match-up rather than a pure zone. I personally can't think of anything a zone may do that you can't do in man if willing to give up the same things...other than a really good 5 man shooting well on the perimeter. There a zone or matchup probably has the switch earlier and can prevent better Purdue's 5 defending a good shooting should that good shooting five be a legitimate threat for a few baskets.You could be right. Not going to argue, but you would think that a very good coach like Painter, or any of the many others would jump all over some kind of defense that would bring even one more win. Just say’in.
All that said, I have witnessed (for whatever reason that probably defies logic) a zone that appears to alter a game at times. Personally, I have a hard time ruling out why and sometimes wonder if it isn't an athletic thing that players get into a zone mentally whereas in a pure zone and to a lesser degree a matchup zone requires more organization...and maybe the team attack of that athletic team isn't quite as good? Also, I could be wrong (I'm sure many are shaking their heads up and down), but a "top" team, one that people want in a final four (without luck) as deserving are usually good enough offensively that a zone would not work, but could be effective against a lesser team perhaps? Anyway, in high school a zone can be VERY effective...and in college has appeared at times to alter a few possessions and change a game for some teams.
It also works at the professional level (see Miami Heat). It's not just a High School defense. That is completely wrong and can be effective against the best teams. Once again, you have to watch something other than the B1G to see it. People on here that defend CMP on this subject twist themselves into all kinds of knots trying to justify his position on it. It's really very simple, he doesn't believe in playing them.
All you have to do is watch his interview from last year when he was asked about it. He went into a very long answer that included "The B1G is a Man to Man league" quote that I use often on here. It was a ridiculous answer to a legitimate question. Do you really want to hang your hat on the B1G and their tendencies?
I like CMP a lot and think he is probably the best coach we can get right now at PU. But this one area is a weakness of his. I think some of his supporters on here have a hard time just saying he has a blind spot here. They think that if they admit that, somehow it's opening the door for further criticism. I have no such problem.
Didn't John Bellein come into the B1G playing mostly zone and later relented to more man-to-man? Did the zone help Bellein and Michigan in its tournament runs? (note: serious questions; I really don't remember).
That was very profound.
It's a message board for discussion. If the only thing you have to say is "he's the coach end of discussion" then we really don't need the board do we?? Why even come here?
I remember him using Zone as a tool. I don't remember it being his main defense. I don't recall any B1G ever using zone as their main defense in the past 20 years.
There are very few teams that use zone as their go to defense. Syracuse was the obvious exception. MTM is by far the most common and for good reason. That doesn't mean there isn't a place for zone to be used.
While I do think you have a reasonable point, I still have to approach you position with some skepticism. Here's why. Shrewsbury was on Matt's staff for several years, and he is known for crafting NBA level defenses. You would think that "Zone" would have crossed into the vocabulary at some point during his stay at West Laffy, right?
Did we see PSU use zone when Shrews was there? I don't think we did, so maybe there is a solid reason behind Painter's approach besides the false "He is too stubborn" argument? At this point, I am well outside my level of knowledge about the sport, so I am just running on "loose change" right now
I don't know if he played mostly zone, but he did run a 1-3-1. I can't recall if it was pure or match-up. Anytime anyone talks about playing a zone or seeing if it was effective it helps if knowing it was a pure or match-up zone for dialog. Not knowing what it was doesn't allow proper dialog because as I've said many colleges play match-up zone, not pure zone, and they are different in what they do, what they may allow, what weaknesses they may have. A pure zone has a lot of weaknesses and some potential strengths. A match-up differs "little" from man with switching. A pure zone is at one end of the spectrum and a man in full denial over the whole court is at the other end. Everything else lies in-between
I don't follow PSU very closely, I will admit. Unless they are playing PU I don't watch them very often (does anyone)? So I won't try to speak specifically about Shrews and his defensive beliefs. While at PU he wouldn't have been implementing any zone.While I do think you have a reasonable point, I still have to approach you position with some skepticism. Here's why. Shrewsbury was on Matt's staff for several years, and he is known for crafting NBA level defenses. You would think that "Zone" would have crossed into the vocabulary at some point during his stay at West Laffy, right?
Did we see PSU use zone when Shrews was there? I don't think we did, so maybe there is a solid reason behind Painter's approach besides the false "He is too stubborn" argument? At this point, I am well outside my level of knowledge about the sport, so I am just running on "loose change" right now
All you have to do is go back and listen to CMP anytime the subject is brought up. He flat out doesn't believe in it. Look, I'm not staying up at night worrying about it. I personally think he has a blind spot in this area, but reasonable people can disagree. Over the years I have given many examples on here of where other college coaches have successfully used different zone defenses. No, you will not see it very often in the B1G. Add that to the list of things I think is wrong with our conference.
I'll drop out of this discussion now, I shouldn't have gone down the rabbit hole again (I can't help myself). I'll leave it with this: I think you can be a fan of CMP and think he does most things right and still be critical of him in certain areas. The problem with this board is there are folks that absolutely will not recognize any weaknesses he has. I think they feel like if they simply say, "yeah, I wish he did that differently" they are somehow opening up the door to further criticism of him. Then there are others that just say "he's the coach, you're not". No kidding? I didn't know that, thanks for pointing that out! Lastly you have the ones that try to parse words and make it sound like his MTM is the same as a zone (it's not). CMP freely admits it's not a zone. At the end of the day, I'm a huge PU fan and proud alumnus. I'm cheering for CMP and the team no matter what. I just wish he would be more open to the possibility that there are other options on the defensive end.
Have a good weekend everyone!
I agree with the perspective of supporting, yet being critical of the coach. You nailed it from that perspective. My viewpoint is that concerns about Painter's X&O capabilities are fundamentally flawed, and somewhat miss the critical issue. My criticism is that he does a poor job of preparing his team psychologically for big games. His guys play scared instead of confidently. To me, that is his biggest flaw. Maybe he need a competent team psychologist??
Maybe you should have finished your reading comprehension. Then you'd actually understand words like profound.
I think you are confusing us that defend him. Not about thinking he does no wrong. More about grasping that there are offensive and defensive philosophies and every single one has its pluses and minuses. Understanding that every coach is going to chose that line in the sand and draw it as he WILL is not thinking he does no wrong. It's understanding it's his right to make that call and people that spend endless thread time trying to belittle him because he doesn't like zone are just nuts. And if we dont' agree with them then we have our head stuck in the sand. Geeezus.
Not sure how this got missed but TJD got sent to the G-League last week. He had played in 5 games and 2 of them were decent.
