Podcast talks about zone defense:

[nagemj02]

They are talking about exactly what some of us would like to see (topic starts approx. at 7:00 minute mark):

http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/cbssportscom-eye-on-college-basketball-podcast

http://tunein.com/radio/CBSSportscom-Eye-On-College-Basketball-Podcast-p307015/

http://www.cbssports.com/college-ba...entucky-to-get-a-top-seed-in-ncaa-tournament/

 

[BoiledSteel]

Which wouldn't of done much of anything against Nebraska because we kept turning it over off of careless mistakes.

 

[nagemj02]

What did folks like Dryfly88 (and whoever else) think about their zone and coaches using zone discussion?

 

[nagemj02]

Which wouldn't of done much of anything against Nebraska because we kept turning it over off of careless mistakes.

Nebraska had a lot of easy baskets in the halfcourt by beating all of the defenders to the hoop on drives or on drives where the defense collapsed after they had been beaten and the driver dished it off to an open teammate for an easy basket. It definitely could have helped on those type of possessions and it could have helped allow Haas and Swanigan to play together more often because there would be less concern about them being beaten to the basket and they wouldn't have to hedge (or in general, guard) high-ball screen action.

 

[Dryfly88]

What did folks like Dryfly88 (and whoever else) think about their zone and coaches using zone discussion?

Nage: I've tried to stay out of the zone discussion for a while. It was getting so snarky it wasn't worth it. I come here for fun and that wasn't any fun for me.

I started posting a thread Saturday night after the KU/KY game and decided not to. It was so funny listening to Bilas and then the KU coaching staff talking about how going to the zone completely turned that game around. Self plays MTM the vast majority of the time and they were getting beaten by penetration from KY. He went to a 2-3 zone and KY went stagnant and KU pulled away and won. Marquette did the same thing to Villanova earlier in the week. Went to a zone, Nova couldn't hit from the outside and Marquette closed on a 19-4 run.

I know it's not CMP's philosophy so I've given up on it (at least for this season). I just think it would be a nice tool to have available. I know the majority on here disagree and think we are better off with strictly MTM.

I haven't listened to that podcast yet, but I will do so tonight.

 

[nagemj02]

Nage: I've tried to stay out of the zone discussion for a while. It was getting so snarky it wasn't worth it. I come here for fun and that wasn't any fun for me.

I started posting a thread Saturday night after the KU/KY game and decided not to. It was so funny listening to Bilas and then the KU coaching staff talking about how going to the zone completely turned that game around. Self plays MTM the vast majority of the time and they were getting beaten by penetration from KY. He went to a 2-3 zone and KY went stagnant and KU pulled away and won. Marquette did the same thing to Villanova earlier in the week. Went to a zone, Nova couldn't hit from the outside and Marquette closed on a 19-4 run.

I know it's not CMP's philosophy so I've given up on it (at least for this season). I just think it would be a nice tool to have available. I know the majority on here disagree and think we are better off with strictly MTM.

I haven't listened to that podcast yet, but I will do so tonight.

Spoiler Alert: The KU-UK game and Bill Self going to a zone defense is the starting point of their zone discussion. They start talking about that game in the first couple of minutes but the zone isn't mentioned until about the 5 minute mark. They really start talking about it from approx. the 7 minute mark until about the 15 minute mark.

 

[BoilerBiker]

fwiw, seth Greensburg and espn panel also discussed this tonight
(how coaches can change games via defensive changes, going to zone)

continues to be a topic elsewhere too

 

[krazyjvilled]

Nage: I've tried to stay out of the zone discussion for a while. It was getting so snarky it wasn't worth it. I come here for fun and that wasn't any fun for me.

I started posting a thread Saturday night after the KU/KY game and decided not to. It was so funny listening to Bilas and then the KU coaching staff talking about how going to the zone completely turned that game around. Self plays MTM the vast majority of the time and they were getting beaten by penetration from KY. He went to a 2-3 zone and KY went stagnant and KU pulled away and won. Marquette did the same thing to Villanova earlier in the week. Went to a zone, Nova couldn't hit from the outside and Marquette closed on a 19-4 run.

I know it's not CMP's philosophy so I've given up on it (at least for this season). I just think it would be a nice tool to have available. I know the majority on here disagree and think we are better off with strictly MTM.

I haven't listened to that podcast yet, but I will do so tonight.

It is not even a debate... being able to play multiple defenses is 100% ALWAYS better. There is never a time where only playing 1 defense is the better option.

There are examples every single day of this. But nope, not Painter, not Purdue. I wonder how many of our close losses we would have won if we switched into a zone for short periods to throw them off a bit.

I'm betting we would have beat minnesota, nebraska, and Iowa had we done so and possibly even Villanova.

 

[BuilderBob6]

Uh. You people fail to look at personnel. Fail to look at the characteristics of the players needed to be effective. Fail to look at the effect on rebounding. Fail to look at instances it doesn't work.

I have no problem putting it in the arsenal to play in spots if we can be effective playing it. Right now, we can't. We don't have the horses. Before you say it, yes, a zone can hide a weak player........maybe two. But not most of the team.
I watched a game last week, think it was IU, the lead doubled in about two minutes of playing zone.

 

[tjreese]

Uh. You people fail to look at personnel. Fail to look at the characteristics of the players needed to be effective. Fail to look at the effect on rebounding. Fail to look at instances it doesn't work.

I have no problem putting it in the arsenal to play in spots if we can be effective playing it. Right now, we can't. We don't have the horses. Before you say it, yes, a zone can hide a weak player........maybe two. But not most of the team.
I watched a game last week, think it was IU, the lead doubled in about two minutes of playing zone.

A couple of things. First, when an advocate for a zone promotes it there is never a distinction betwen pure zone and matchup and so I have no idea which is desired...and perhaps those advocating it either don't care or can't distinguish.

Second people act as though this is Purdue and Matt and that Matt would never use a zone only to forget that a zone was used for a few games a couple of years ago and Purdue never started to turn the corner until it played man and made the tourney. No doubt this reaffirmed Matt's thoughts on a zone.

On record, I'm not opposed to some use of a zone. It can make a difference in a game as does playing man with effort. The difference may not always be positive and a two minute stretch can determine the outcome. What I have asked is for anyone to tell me the advantages of a pure zone, matchup zone and man so that I understand their thoughts on the right application at the right time. Still, the biggest thing in my mind is all the other elements that I think are much bigger than whether a zone is employed or not, and like the silence on "which" zone is desired, I rarely hear the mistakes on fundamentals fumbled. I just don't think the zone will take Purdue as far as trying to eliminate some fundamental mistakes, but that is me and I know others don't see it that way. Grab the first 100 people that leave Mackey or any gym and you will have a variety of opinions in what those people thought they saw...enough variety that the minutes in a game would not allow for experimentation if desired...

 

[since1980]

Situational.

Biggie and Haas do not defend PnR well because they have slow foot speed. So teams with good point guards such as Nebraska have been putting our defense in a bind, especially when they can spot up a stroker (McVeigh) who ends up open when others have to rotate to help after our bigs can't recover. This is where a zone can help. Much like had we gone zone against VCU in the tourney several years ago to stop getting beat on the simple ball screen we couldn't stop.

Against a team who doesn't have good guards who can run ball screens well, and don't also have strokers spotting up, Haas and Biggie can defend the rim better without needing to defend 20 feet out. We can play more straight up.

With our shooters making 3s at a 40% or greater clip, we need to be putting opposing teams in this bind by running more ball screens with Carsen and biggie and making defenses have to make a decision to help off shooters or let Carsen beat a big guy to the rim.

Teams rarely zone us anymore because we have to many shooters that it's impossible to defend all of them if you get the ball in the middle of the zone.

 

[Dryfly88]

I'm not going down the rabbit hole again. I just found it interesting that it is a topic of discussion (at a much higher level than a message board). I think we can all agree that those people discussing it are "qualified" to do so.

TJ: Specifically to your question. I don't endorse any particular zone or defensive scheme change. I have simply suggested that having something other than our standard MTM in the bag would be good. To BB6 point every team is different and he is correct some will be better suited to certain defenses or schemes.

As I have said many times on here, there is no magic bullet. If there were then every team would do it. I have never suggested that implementing multiple defenses guarantees victory. I'm just in favor of having as many weapons as possible that can be used when things are not going our way.

 

[Boiler Wolf]

I don't know if man to man, zone, match up zone, or ozone should be played. All I know is that dribble penetration has been a problem for a while with our team. Last 2 years we had two of the better defenders in the league on our team and we still had issues. This year we don't have them and it is worse.

As a fan of Purdue, it is hard to watch us give up 80+ points to a team like Nebraska. Like "cradle of quarterbacks" in football, "defense lives here" is our heritage. We pay our head coach a lot of money to figure these things out. I don't care what defense he runs, but if a Nebraska can score against us like that, I fear what NCAA tourney teams will do. If it just happened once, okay. But it has been too many times. There are going to be games when the 3s aren't falling. In the past, our D could help us pull out "grinder" type games. No more. The coaches and the team need to figure out how to become a better defensive team besides "play hard".

 

[tjreese]

I'm not going down the rabbit hole again. I just found it interesting that it is a topic of discussion (at a much higher level than a message board). I think we can all agree that those people discussing it are "qualified" to do so.

TJ: Specifically to your question. I don't endorse any particular zone or defensive scheme change. I have simply suggested that having something other than our standard MTM in the bag would be good. To BB6 point every team is different and he is correct some will be better suited to certain defenses or schemes.

As I have said many times on here, there is no magic bullet. If there were then every team would do it. I have never suggested that implementing multiple defenses guarantees victory. I'm just in favor of having as many weapons as possible that can be used when things are not going our way.

My comments were in general...not aimed at anyone adn understand what you are saying. AS I said...I'm not opposed to rare trying of a zone...just not on my highest priority as other things.

 

[tjreese]

I don't know if man to man, zone, match up zone, or ozone should be played. All I know is that dribble penetration has been a problem for a while with our team. Last 2 years we had two of the better defenders in the league on our team and we still had issues. This year we don't have them and it is worse.

As a fan of Purdue, it is hard to watch us give up 80+ points to a team like Nebraska. Like "cradle of quarterbacks" in football, "defense lives here" is our heritage. We pay our head coach a lot of money to figure these things out. I don't care what defense he runs, but if a Nebraska can score against us like that, I fear what NCAA tourney teams will do. If it just happened once, okay. But it has been too many times. There are going to be games when the 3s aren't falling. In the past, our D could help us pull out "grinder" type games. No more. The coaches and the team need to figure out how to become a better defensive team besides "play hard".

Offensive play is confounded inside defensive stats more than we wish.

 

[BoiledSteel]

I don't know if man to man, zone, match up zone, or ozone should be played. All I know is that dribble penetration has been a problem for a while with our team. Last 2 years we had two of the better defenders in the league on our team and we still had issues. This year we don't have them and it is worse.

As a fan of Purdue, it is hard to watch us give up 80+ points to a team like Nebraska. Like "cradle of quarterbacks" in football, "defense lives here" is our heritage. We pay our head coach a lot of money to figure these things out. I don't care what defense he runs, but if a Nebraska can score against us like that, I fear what NCAA tourney teams will do. If it just happened once, okay. But it has been too many times. There are going to be games when the 3s aren't falling. In the past, our D could help us pull out "grinder" type games. No more. The coaches and the team need to figure out how to become a better defensive team besides "play hard".

One thing I have noticed is that the dribble-drive issues started to get worse when the rule changes came about. Not sure if there is any real correlation to that, but it seems too coincidental to me. And people need to keep that in mind when thinking about this whole thing because it really seems that impacted us more than any of us potentially realized.

That whole thing was a drastic culture change that I think CMP is recruiting for that and the future. The game itself isn't even an apples to apples comparison to what it was just a few years ago. I know we like to think things are static and things are fixed just by changing the coach, but any new coach that will come to Purdue, will have their own set of issues and won't be the perfect savior some think he will be.

I do wonder though if we won't see more zone sprinkled in in the coming years because the players coming in might fit a scheme like that better than what we have now.

 

[tjreese]

Situational.

Biggie and Haas do not defend PnR well because they have slow foot speed. So teams with good point guards such as Nebraska have been putting our defense in a bind, especially when they can spot up a stroker (McVeigh) who ends up open when others have to rotate to help after our bigs can't recover. This is where a zone can help. Much like had we gone zone against VCU in the tourney several years ago to stop getting beat on the simple ball screen we couldn't stop.

Against a team who doesn't have good guards who can run ball screens well, and don't also have strokers spotting up, Haas and Biggie can defend the rim better without needing to defend 20 feet out. We can play more straight up.

With our shooters making 3s at a 40% or greater clip, we need to be putting opposing teams in this bind by running more ball screens with Carsen and biggie and making defenses have to make a decision to help off shooters or let Carsen beat a big guy to the rim.

Teams rarely zone us anymore because we have to many shooters that it's impossible to defend all of them if you get the ball in the middle of the zone.

*****************
High ball screens are only effective if the person running them is a threat from the perimeter. If that person doesn’t exist, the threat doesn’t either. If the threat exists, that same person that is a threat from the perimeter may be more open in the zone. The REAL decision is whether that threat is of the magnitude you believe…and THAT is on the coach. VCU killed Purdue because Matt was picking up wayyyyyyy to high IMO and would have been better served if sliding under the ball screen on their pg…another coaching decision. I’m guessing your zone is a pure zone and not matchup. It is true about foot speed…an Achilles Heel for all of the team except Carson. Those slow footed people may have a harder time closing out on an offensive player in a gap rather than being close to them as well and it may not?

 

[tjreese]

One thing I have noticed is that the dribble-drive issues started to get worse when the rule changes came about. Not sure if there is any real correlation to that, but it seems too coincidental to me. And people need to keep that in mind when thinking about this whole thing because it really seems that impacted us more than any of us potentially realized.

That whole thing was a drastic culture change that I think CMP is recruiting for that and the future. The game itself isn't even an apples to apples comparison to what it was just a few years ago. I know we like to think things are static and things are fixed just by changing the coach, but any new coach that will come to Purdue, will have their own set of issues and won't be the perfect savior some think he will be.

I do wonder though if we won't see more zone sprinkled in in the coming years because the players coming in might fit a scheme like that better than what we have now.

I've made many posts agreeing with the rule changes being more adverse to Purdue than other teams. Until Nebraska I thought the last few games were ref'd more like years ago, but the Husker game reverted back to two years ago with the whistle...

 

[SIBoiler2]

Nage: I've tried to stay out of the zone discussion for a while. It was getting so snarky it wasn't worth it. I come here for fun and that wasn't any fun for me.

I started posting a thread Saturday night after the KU/KY game and decided not to. It was so funny listening to Bilas and then the KU coaching staff talking about how going to the zone completely turned that game around. Self plays MTM the vast majority of the time and they were getting beaten by penetration from KY. He went to a 2-3 zone and KY went stagnant and KU pulled away and won. Marquette did the same thing to Villanova earlier in the week. Went to a zone, Nova couldn't hit from the outside and Marquette closed on a 19-4 run.

I know it's not CMP's philosophy so I've given up on it (at least for this season). I just think it would be a nice tool to have available. I know the majority on here disagree and think we are better off with strictly MTM.

I haven't listened to that podcast yet, but I will do so tonight.

Of course Biluous et al fail to address available personnel. UK/KU both have an abundance of 5 star talent which means they have an abundance of exceptional athletes. Makes a difference when you have such talent available by the truck load when you go to implement vastly differing strategies.

 

[BoiledSteel]

I've made many posts agreeing with the rule changes being more adverse to Purdue than other teams. Until Nebraska I thought the last few games were ref'd more like years ago, but the Husker game reverted back to two years ago with the whistle...

Very good points.

 

[Dryfly88]

Of course Biluous et al fail to address available personnel. UK/KU both have an abundance of 5 star talent which means they have an abundance of exceptional athletes. Makes a difference when you have such talent available by the truck load when you go to implement vastly differing strategies.

I don't think you would suggest Marquette has talent by the truck load. It isn't just KU and everybody on here knows that. Also the discussion on ESPN wasn't just about KU. It was discussing it as a topic for all of college basketball and how switching defenses can be effective.

 

[BoiledSteel]

I don't think you would suggest Marquette has talent by the truck load. .

Marquette beat Creighton using mostly man-to-man. I was at that game as I have relatives that go to Creighton and when Marquette went to zone, Creighton starting coming back.

Point is, people seem to be looking for a one solution fits all and every school is unique. What works at one school won't work elsewhere. Otherwise everyone would be doing the same thing and games would end in ties all the time.

 

[Dryfly88]

Marquette beat Creighton using mostly man-to-man. I was at that game as I have relatives that go to Creighton and when Marquette went to zone, Creighton starting coming back.

Point is, people seem to be looking for a one solution fits all and every school is unique. What works at one school won't work elsewhere. Otherwise everyone would be doing the same thing and games would end in ties all the time.

If you would look at post #12 above, I said that exact thing.

 

[Boiler Wolf]

Agree with the comments, but the bottom line is this team isn't getting it done defensively in road games.

 

[BuilderBob6]

That whole thing was a drastic culture change that I think CMP is recruiting for that and the future.

I do wonder though if we won't see more zone sprinkled in in the coming years because the players coming in might fit a scheme like that better than what we have now.

I think these points are dead on.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

virginia tech runs a zone. their defense is awful. their rebounding is awful. their steals are awful. near last in the acc. luckily for them, their offense is great.

 

[BuilderBob6]

*****************
I’m guessing your zone is a pure zone and not matchup. It is true about foot speed…an Achilles Heel for all of the team except Carson. Those slow footed people may have a harder time closing out on an offensive player in a gap rather than being close to them as well and it may not?

This is the essence of the argument. Some believe a true zone affords better defense against penetration. That is far from true........depending on the defenders. In an true zone, ideally one player can still stop penetration and the zone can be maintained. If the penetration requires two defenders to stop it all kinds of options for the offense are opened up. Rotations in the zone can be more difficult as the defenders are at a spot in the floor........as opposed to guarding a man which allows them to play farther off away from the ball and puts them in a better position to help against penetration.
It still comes down to the speed, quickness, length, etc. of the defenders........as you eluded to. A zone is only as good as the guys playing it. Man to man gives our players........not great athletes........a much better chance to rotate and help than a zone does.

 

[Dryfly88]

I'll just say this and let it go:

I don't believe a zone is the be all, end all for us or any other team. What I've been an advocate for is versatility. Have a zone or some other scheme to go to when your favored defense isn't being effective. It absolutely does not guarantee that you will be able to slow down or defeat what the offense is currently doing to you. There is no such defense. What it may do is force the offense to also adjust and possibly not be as effective as they were before. This could be for a couple possessions or it could be for longer. Each team will be different in what their personnel will be best at, but there is something that each team can do (2-3, 1-3-1, box and 1, triangle and 2 ect......). It doesn't have to be used in every game. In fact, it may be rarely used. If the preferred defense is working by all means just keep doing it.

I used the KU example because it was recent and a very high profile game, but it is by no means the only one. I think that the mere fact that the ESPN panel was discussing the effectiveness of changing defenses shows that it isn't some wild idea that some guys on a message board came up with. It can be effective. I'm hopeful that Matt will add that to our toolbox maybe as early as next year. I think he is a good coach and will be even better with more options to go to on the defensive end if our traditional MTM isn't working.

For this years team this is not even close to the most important thing. Clean up the damn turnovers and that would make a world of difference!!

 

[BoilerBiker]

if our roster/player attributes did not meet enough criteria two seasons ago either, why do you think the staff chose to try in the first place?

i guess I didn't remember that many fans vehemently opposed to painters ideas then

 

[nagemj02]

Agree with the comments, but the bottom line is this team isn't getting it done defensively in road games.

home games as well (Villanova, Minnesota)

 

[nagemj02]

So did anyone actually listen to the podcast? They talked about how if a coach is going to play variations of zone, they have to commit to it even when things aren't going well with it. Over time, numbers suggest that teams have lower shooting percentages (and generally a tougher time scoring) against teams that do this (and have some talent, a la Purdue).

That was the problem when Painter tried it two seasons ago (just a 2-3, I believe): he didn't stick with it. You have to stick with it, keep practicing it, make some tweaks to it if necessary, and over time, it can start to become more consistently effective.

 

[BoiledSteel]

So did anyone actually listen to the podcast? They talked about how if a coach is going to play variations of zone, they have to commit to it even when things aren't going well with it. Over time, numbers suggest that teams have lower shooting percentages (and generally a tougher time scoring) against teams that do this (and have some talent, a la Purdue).

That was the problem when Painter tried it two seasons ago (just a 2-3, I believe): he didn't stick with it. You have to stick with it, keep practicing it, make some tweaks to it if necessary, and over time, it can start to become more consistently effective.

You still need the right personnel for it which we really don't. Well not yet and I think that is changing.

 

[tjreese]

if our roster/player attributes did not meet enough criteria two seasons ago either, why do you think the staff chose to try in the first place?

i guess I didn't remember that many fans vehemently opposed to painters ideas then

I think that is a fair question and wish I had an answer. I can't tell you what prompted the zone. I think Kendalls length had something to do with it and wondering if Haas was here or it was three seasons ago. I do know that it cost us the KSU game and the North Florida game quickly as KSU worked the short corner and the North Florida game deciding bucket was the way Matt played the zone on out of bounds with AJ. I know Matt went to his staple D and things got better. I imagine that tasted awful to Matt and no doubt reaffirmed his thougths on a pure zone. Matt spent a lot of time that summer discussing with Basil Mawbey among others? employing a zone

 

[krazyjvilled]

Uh. You people fail to look at personnel. Fail to look at the characteristics of the players needed to be effective. Fail to look at the effect on rebounding. Fail to look at instances it doesn't work.

I have no problem putting it in the arsenal to play in spots if we can be effective playing it. Right now, we can't. We don't have the horses. Before you say it, yes, a zone can hide a weak player........maybe two. But not most of the team.
I watched a game last week, think it was IU, the lead doubled in about two minutes of playing zone.

you literally are contradicting yourself... man 2 man is harder to play with weak defensive players than a zone is... that is the whole purpose of a zone

I'm not sure where some of you guys get your bball understanding from

 

[BoilerBiker]

I think that is a fair question and wish I had an answer. I can't tell you what prompted the zone. I think Kendalls length had something to do with it and wondering if Haas was here or it was three seasons ago. I do know that it cost us the KSU game and the North Florida game quickly as KSU worked the short corner and the North Florida game deciding bucket was the way Matt played the zone on out of bounds with AJ. I know Matt went to his staple D and things got better. I imagine that tasted awful to Matt and no doubt reaffirmed his thougths on a pure zone. Matt spent a lot of time that summer discussing with Basil Mawbey among others? employing a zone

haas's freshman year

 

[tjreese]

you literally are contradicting yourself... man 2 man is harder to play with weak defensive players than a zone is... that is the whole purpose of a zone

I'm not sure where some of you guys get your bball understanding from

Actually, Bob was discussing a pure zone..not a match up. Bob's point is that a pure zone is court area first on D. Teh offensive coach can place his players where ever he desires. In a pure zone, most offensive coaches do not place his players close to a respective defender which in essence would result in the pure zone being more similar to man defense. Instead most offensive coaches when facing a pure zone would place people in gaps where the defense is not close. Bob's comment was that those slow afoot may have more distance to cover to defend his player than possibly being closer to start with by being in man...not to mention horrible block out assignments. Now that was with a balanced offense (floor balance) against a pure zone. What if the coach runs an unbalanced offense against he zone where there are more offensive players on a side than the defense can cover ...since the pure zone is court area first...ball...and then rules on various shifts towards certain players.

Man defense can be sagging and more positional (Hank Iba). Wisconsin has played more positional defense for year to contain and contend the shot. Purdue has moved that way the last couple of years more than previously under Matt. Bottom line..pure zone is on one end, pressure D and full denial man on the other and a couple hundred thousand modifications in between. Teh next time you watch a team play man...just glance periodically at the defensive alignment and see if you don't see initial alignments in a 2-3 many times. Most teams don't play pure zone if in defense described as "zone". Many play matchup zone which is treated as a man defense by offensive coaches looking for miscommunications in the handoffs due to switches. Themost common way of detecting this is to see a team get down into an alignment and as the offensive team comes down the floor a defender in top will start pointing and identifying who he has so the others can matchup with the rest.

 

[tjreese]

haas's freshman year

was thinking that, but hell all the games run together after a while...

 

[tjreese]

Actually, Bob was discussing a pure zone..not a match up. Bob's point is that a pure zone is court area first on D. Teh offensive coach can place his players where ever he desires. In a pure zone, most offensive coaches do not place his players close to a respective defender which in essence would result in the pure zone being more similar to man defense. Instead most offensive coaches when facing a pure zone would place people in gaps where the defense is not close. Bob's comment was that those slow afoot may have more distance to cover to defend his player than possibly being closer to start with by being in man...not to mention horrible block out assignments. Now that was with a balanced offense (floor balance) against a pure zone. What if the coach runs an unbalanced offense against he zone where there are more offensive players on a side than the defense can cover ...since the pure zone is court area first...ball...and then rules on various shifts towards certain players.

Man defense can be sagging and more positional (Hank Iba). Wisconsin has played more positional defense for year to contain and contend the shot. Purdue has moved that way the last couple of years more than previously under Matt. Bottom line..pure zone is on one end, pressure D and full denial man on the other and a couple hundred thousand modifications in between. Teh next time you watch a team play man...just glance periodically at the defensive alignment and see if you don't see initial alignments in a 2-3 many times. Most teams don't play pure zone if in defense described as "zone". Many play matchup zone which is treated as a man defense by offensive coaches looking for miscommunications in the handoffs due to switches. Themost common way of detecting this is to see a team get down into an alignment and as the offensive team comes down the floor a defender in top will start pointing and identifying who he has so the others can matchup with the rest.

******************
I'll add that the theory behind a matchup zone is to take the advantages of man and fine tune those with the different needs in defending skill sets in particular areas. It is recognized that a guard needs different defensive skill sets than a center and those skill sets are many times court related. Defending the dribble is different than defense in the low post. Soooooo, the matchup tries to keep the defense in man, but in an area of the court that the players skills are best suited. Man defense can do the same things with switching...until isolation prevents the switch back when in trouble. Switching in man may be more player specific, where the match-up is more area specific...but both guarding a man.

 

[krazyjvilled]

guys, I realize there are 100's of different iterations of both man and zone principles.

That doesn't change the fact that if you have a team devoid of athletes, that zone defense is better to play to cover their weaknesses. The whole idea in a base zone is to protect the inside, and keep everything outside.. you give up outside shots, but hope to contest them by coming out at them. Our weakness is easy to spot on defense... dribble drive and high pick n roll leading to dribble drive. We give up more layups than probably any team in the big ten.

This is remedied by zone defense.. that is as simple as it gets.. would it turn our defense into an elite one? Absolutely not because we have 0 elite defenders, but it absolutely would take away layups and penetration an awful lot more than current. We would be giving up more open 3's most likely, but at this point it is worth trying and if a team gets hot from outside, we can switch it back up.

 

[tjreese]

guys, I realize there are 100's of different iterations of both man and zone principles.

That doesn't change the fact that if you have a team devoid of athletes, that zone defense is better to play to cover their weaknesses. The whole idea in a base zone is to protect the inside, and keep everything outside.. you give up outside shots, but hope to contest them by coming out at them. Our weakness is easy to spot on defense... dribble drive and high pick n roll leading to dribble drive. We give up more layups than probably any team in the big ten.

This is remedied by zone defense.. that is as simple as it gets.. would it turn our defense into an elite one? Absolutely not because we have 0 elite defenders, but it absolutely would take away layups and penetration an awful lot more than current. We would be giving up more open 3's most likely, but at this point it is worth trying and if a team gets hot from outside, we can switch it back up.

***************
I can certainly understand the sentiment to protect the inside intially and then extend the defense if the offensive team warrants that action. I can go under the high ball screen and give up the outside shot in man..pull in the defenders on the wing and give up the outside shot to the offensive players on the wing and stop the drive.. in man...essentially not hugging the man as close. Like a zone, I will be giving up some positioning for rebounds and perhaps a harder time closing out. With a zone I can screen the top of the zone and get teh same shot by the same player that the defensive team is worried about shooting that makes the high ball screen effective and accomplish the same task. i can place more offensive players where there are no defenders to guarantee an open shot as well.

The real discussion (and I have typed way too much on this subject for a few weeks is not so much about whether a pure zone or not, as I can make man do those things and give up what a pure zone does) is about how much pressure out of the court is needed and which poison do you want to pick...which you stated, but only thinking that was accomplished by a pure zone. Are you worried about boards? Are you worried about the three ball? Are you worried about war in the paint? Was your offense efficient requiring the opposing team to play against your set defense or did you find them getting to the rim because your defense was not set? Just how much did your offense lend to the defensive problems? There are so many factors or iterations as you said that can modify a defensive approach to some degree, but it all starts with the offensive power or strengths of the team you are playing. What you are willing to give up and what you are not willing to give up...assuming of course the teams are equal. A superior team can do what they want...give up anything as it may not matter...the others...need to pick the right poison for the team being played with teh personnel at disposal