Podcast talks about zone defense:

[MJ-79Boiler]

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

I believe the issue is when we give up significant pts at the rim and on the FT line. (due to dribble penetration) When teams do that, we have to "outshoot" them significantly. (which is a lot tougher on the road)

In the non-conf, we could make up the points being spotted in the paint area by outrebounding teams, but the big ten hits the glass, so it's coming down to shooting percentages and teams who can put up 45 easy pts a game on us by driving into the paint. Look for Maryland, Indiana, Penn State and NW road games to be great examples of what I am saying.

 

[nagemj02]

I believe the issue is when we give up significant pts at the rim and on the FT line. (due to dribble penetration) When teams do that, we have to "outshoot" them significantly. (which is a lot tougher on the road)

In the non-conf, we could make up the points being spotted in the paint area by outrebounding teams, but the big ten hits the glass, so it's coming down to shooting percentages and teams who can put up 45 easy pts a game on us by driving into the paint. Look for Maryland, Indiana, Penn State and NW road games to be great examples of what I am saying.

Yep, and it's more difficult for an opponent to score or be successful off of dribble-penetration when a team is in some type or form of zone than when a team primarily made up of players with average foot-speed are playing man-to-man defense and chasing them around every single possession.

 

[since1980]

*****************
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?

TJ, I played for Basil on one of his best teams. I know you are also very familiar with him and that comes out anytime zone is brought up. You've made a lot of valid points.
Somebody mentioned how Purdue tried zone a few years ago and quickly abandoned it which was a mistake in my opinion. Vince kept falling asleep on the back end which killed the zone. Painter should have kept working on it. A zone needs practiced and zone principles and rotations need learned and drilled over and over. Just like man to man. You can't just Willy nilly play a zone and expect good results.
One of the keys to a good zone (regardless of type) is to know the capabilities of the guy in your area you are defending. If it's Tom Coverdale and he can stroke from 25 feet, you have to find a way to be out on him at the catch. If the scouting report tells you the guy in your area shoots 25% beyond the arc and is more of a dribble-drive guy, you don't worry about flying out at him and only guard him at 17 feet. You learn to take better angles, go under a screen instead of over. It's about being smart and knowing the capabilities of the players on the other team.

A lot of good talk on here. Nothing is one size fits all. I personally believe as reffing has changed, it wouldn't be a bad thing for Painter to be more flexible.

 

[BuilderBob6]

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

I know nothing.
As I eluded to, the idea that zone stops penetration is not always true, especially when the defenders are slow. Hint......it's not the first penetration that's necessarily the problem. When it draws two defenders, then it opens up other options. The resulting pass or passes determine whether you get open threes or penetration from the wing or the baseline.......among other options.
Weak defensive players will struggle with any defense. Good defenders have the right mindset and effort. When you add length, quickness, athleticism you get elite defenders.
Like others, you seem to think a zone is easy to play and it takes little athleticism.........and the results will still be preferable to a helping man to man with good rotations. It seems to be a common misconception.
Zones have many purposes. You can look them up if you like.

 

[BuilderBob6]

TJ, I played for Basil on one of his best teams. I know you are also very familiar with him and that comes out anytime zone is brought up. You've made a lot of valid points.
Somebody mentioned how Purdue tried zone a few years ago and quickly abandoned it which was a mistake in my opinion. Vince kept falling asleep on the back end which killed the zone. Painter should have kept working on it. A zone needs practiced and zone principles and rotations need learned and drilled over and over. Just like man to man. You can't just Willy nilly play a zone and expect good results.
One of the keys to a good zone (regardless of type) is to know the capabilities of the guy in your area you are defending. If it's Tom Coverdale and he can stroke from 25 feet, you have to find a way to be out on him at the catch. If the scouting report tells you the guy in your area shoots 25% beyond the arc and is more of a dribble-drive guy, you don't worry about flying out at him and only guard him at 17 feet. You learn to take better angles, go under a screen instead of over. It's about being smart and knowing the capabilities of the players on the other team.

A lot of good talk on here. Nothing is one size fits all. I personally believe as reffing has changed, it wouldn't be a bad thing for Painter to be more flexible.

Good post. Your point about a zone needing to be practiced over and over is the key for me. I believe, people can accept it or not, Painter would rather spend that time getting better at one defense rather than being ok at two. I'm sure some will use our losses to argue this point but Painter teams have always been good defensive teams, some seasons very good. We have been this year at times, just not consistently. As you said about any defense, it takes a lot of time and work to be a good defensive team......whatever you choose to play. I see very few teams that play zone and man to man equally well.
I have no problem with "switching it up" with a zone.......when you can at least be above average doing it. Length and athleticism can make an average zone defense into an above average one without all the practice needed imo........ but as we are built in 2017, we don't have those attributes on this team. Painter is moving in that direction and therefore we very might well see some zone in the future. I'm sure it would make many here happy.........until it gets diced up at some point. Maybe the next wish will be the Crean "man/zone in the same possession" defense.

 

[tjreese]

TJ, I played for Basil on one of his best teams. I know you are also very familiar with him and that comes out anytime zone is brought up. You've made a lot of valid points.
Somebody mentioned how Purdue tried zone a few years ago and quickly abandoned it which was a mistake in my opinion. Vince kept falling asleep on the back end which killed the zone. Painter should have kept working on it. A zone needs practiced and zone principles and rotations need learned and drilled over and over. Just like man to man. You can't just Willy nilly play a zone and expect good results.
One of the keys to a good zone (regardless of type) is to know the capabilities of the guy in your area you are defending. If it's Tom Coverdale and he can stroke from 25 feet, you have to find a way to be out on him at the catch. If the scouting report tells you the guy in your area shoots 25% beyond the arc and is more of a dribble-drive guy, you don't worry about flying out at him and only guard him at 17 feet. You learn to take better angles, go under a screen instead of over. It's about being smart and knowing the capabilities of the players on the other team.

A lot of good talk on here. Nothing is one size fits all. I personally believe as reffing has changed, it wouldn't be a bad thing for Painter to be more flexible.

Basil was definitely a zone man and challenging the shooting pocket person. The point I have tried to make over an over (and I do believe you can do things in highschool that you can't in college) is that whatever you call your defense, it is always a combination of court position, ball position and player position with all of those a function of who has the ball and where the others are. You can take a zone and make it almost the same as man and you can take a man and make it almost a pure zone. in the most basic sense you are wanting to defend a makeable shot, whether inside or out and have good rebounding position. Your choice of D may or may not gamble for steals, but will rarely play all people as equal threats. I think Basil tried to see if possible every team he played 5-10 times if possible...and that many times gives a much better feel for the team when playing them. Knowing the players tendencies and accurately understanding your players abilities is key as you suggest. FWIW, I have stated many times that you can take anything and if executing it to a high degree be successful. I think too many on here don't grasp how close defenses are. I can take man and adapt to each player. You can take zone and cheat or key on players as well. I believe in college man is the best, most flexible defense played...and probably 95% or more coaches use that as their staple defense. Some percentage below that only use man, but have no feel for that number. Personally. I think I can do almost everything a zone does in man...and there are many things a zone can do like man.

I think the real issue comes down to what do you want to give up...because both have potential issues and THAT is the real debate. Glad you chimed in. I may have asked you in the past...do you know Bruce Taflinger (JV under Basil some)...we used to play a lot of ball back in the 70s when there was one city league, church league and pickup.

 

[BoiledSteel]

Good post. Your point about a zone needing to be practiced over and over is the key for me. I believe, people can accept it or not, Painter would rather spend that time getting better at one defense rather than being ok at two. I'm sure some will use our losses to argue this point but Painter teams have always been good defensive teams, some seasons very good. We have been this year at times, just not consistently. As you said about any defense, it takes a lot of time and work to be a good defensive team......whatever you choose to play. I see very few teams that play zone and man to man equally well.
I have no problem with "switching it up" with a zone.......when you can at least be above average doing it. Length and athleticism can make an average zone defense into an above average one without all the practice needed imo........ but as we are built in 2017, we don't have those attributes on this team. Painter is moving in that direction and therefore we very might well see some zone in the future. I'm sure it would make many here happy.........until it gets diced up at some point. Maybe the next wish will be the Crean "man/zone in the same possession" defense.

As you said, we have far bigger issues to fix long before we worry about something that more than likely isn't going to impact the game all that much. Limit turnovers and go from there.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

Basil was definitely a zone man and challenging the shooting pocket person. The point I have tried to make over an over (and I do believe you can do things in highschool that you can't in college) is that whatever you call your defense, it is always a combination of court position, ball position and player position with all of those a function of who has the ball and where the others are. You can take a zone and make it almost the same as man and you can take a man and make it almost a pure zone. in the most basic sense you are wanting to defend a makeable shot, whether inside or out and have good rebounding position. Your choice of D may or may not gamble for steals, but will rarely play all people as equal threats. I think Basil tried to see if possible every team he played 5-10 times if possible...and that many times gives a much better feel for the team when playing them. Knowing the players tendencies and accurately understanding your players abilities is key as you suggest. FWIW, I have stated many times that you can take anything and if executing it to a high degree be successful. I think too many on here don't grasp how close defenses are. I can take man and adapt to each player. You can take zone and cheat or key on players as well. I believe in college man is the best, most flexible defense played...and probably 95% or more coaches use that as their staple defense. Some percentage below that only use man, but have no feel for that number. Personally. I think I can do almost everything a zone does in man...and there are many things a zone can do like man.

I think the real issue comes down to what do you want to give up...because both have potential issues and THAT is the real debate. Glad you chimed in. I may have asked you in the past...do you know Bruce Taflinger (JV under Basil some)...we used to play a lot of ball back in the 70s when there was one city league, church league and pickup.

I think that this is exactly right. I really like that Painter has gotten more conservative with his defense in recent seasons, as I think that UVa and Wisconsin are among the best at getting great results without tremendous athleticism on defense, but even these schools have a lot more quickness in the post than Purdue.

I am probably in the minority here who looks at Purdue's personnel and thinks that the team has over-achieved on defense, despite some bad games. I also appreciate that the Purdue bigs play not to foul, which leads to some relatively easy baskets at times.

I agree with those who say that the problems on offense are more easily correctable. I think back to the 2012 team that led the nation in lowest turnover percentage and I see similar abiltity in this team. The difference is that that team had no post game. I really think that this team could improve its offensive efficiency by de-emphasizing the post game to an extent. I think that it is possible to still get quite a few touches for the bigs with less emphasis on post isolation.

 

[BoilerBiker]

I really think that this team could improve its offensive efficiency by de-emphasizing the post game to an extent. I think that it is possible to still get quite a few touches for the bigs with less emphasis on post isolation.

since we saw this as our repeated go-to move to win the Neb game, what would have been your desired play(s) instead?

 

[Wilt 13]

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/

 

[BoilerDaddy]

since we saw this as our repeated go-to move to win the Neb game, what would have been your desired play(s) instead?

I'd like to see the offense look a little more like 2012, which depended on motion offense to probe for open shots or slashing opportunities.. I certainly wouldn't want to abandon the post game, but I think that sometimes the ball goes into the post too early and other times Swanigan holds on to the ball way too long, rather than keeping it moving. Many of the turnovers happen when the ball stays in one post player's hands too long.

 

[tjreese]

I think that this is exactly right. I really like that Painter has gotten more conservative with his defense in recent seasons, as I think that UVa and Wisconsin are among the best at getting great results without tremendous athleticism on defense, but even these schools have a lot more quickness in the post than Purdue.

I am probably in the minority here who looks at Purdue's personnel and thinks that the team has over-achieved on defense, despite some bad games. I also appreciate that the Purdue bigs play not to foul, which leads to some relatively easy baskets at times.

I agree with those who say that the problems on offense are more easily correctable. I think back to the 2012 team that led the nation in lowest turnover percentage and I see similar abiltity in this team. The difference is that that team had no post game. I really think that this team could improve its offensive efficiency by de-emphasizing the post game to an extent. I think that it is possible to still get quite a few touches for the bigs with less emphasis on post isolation.

Very true, but wonder how long has can go...and you do need to look inside a lot whether you past it in or not

 

[BuilderBob6]

Very true, but wonder how long has can go...and you do need to look inside a lot whether you past it in or not

Yep. People have to remember. Unlike other teams, we don't get many of our threes from dribble penetration, draw the defense, kick out for the three. Ours come more from working inside out and good passing. If we stop working through the post the good looks we get from three will be harder to get.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

Very true, but wonder how long has can go...and you do need to look inside a lot whether you past it in or not

I agree about looking inside, as long as it doesn't feel forced. I like what I'm seeing this evening. It felt forced against Nebraska.

 

[tjreese]

I agree about looking inside, as long as it doesn't feel forced. I like what I'm seeing this evening. It felt forced against Nebraska.

Interesting, I thought purdue was to quick to shoot and not enough inside looks...to penalize Nebraska inside. I saw teams running up and down and when it got inside it never came back out the easy way like it was early in this game. 3 pts on the perimeter is not worth as much as 3 inside.

 

[Dakota Girl]

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

Have to disagree with ya here. If you play bad man you will play bad zone. A good zone is not a cure for slowness, laziness, or lack of understanding. Unless you don't care if it works or not. I think both types of D are terrific. But I do not for one second think zone is a cure for bad man to man.

 

[Dakota Girl]

TJ, I played for Basil on one of his best teams. I know you are also very familiar with him and that comes out anytime zone is brought up. You've made a lot of valid points.
Somebody mentioned how Purdue tried zone a few years ago and quickly abandoned it which was a mistake in my opinion. Vince kept falling asleep on the back end which killed the zone. Painter should have kept working on it. A zone needs practiced and zone principles and rotations need learned and drilled over and over. Just like man to man. You can't just Willy nilly play a zone and expect good results.
One of the keys to a good zone (regardless of type) is to know the capabilities of the guy in your area you are defending. If it's Tom Coverdale and he can stroke from 25 feet, you have to find a way to be out on him at the catch. If the scouting report tells you the guy in your area shoots 25% beyond the arc and is more of a dribble-drive guy, you don't worry about flying out at him and only guard him at 17 feet. You learn to take better angles, go under a screen instead of over. It's about being smart and knowing the capabilities of the players on the other team.

A lot of good talk on here. Nothing is one size fits all. I personally believe as reffing has changed, it wouldn't be a bad thing for Painter to be more flexible.

I think it may change as the athleticism of this team increases. I see greater foot speed and lateral agility coming. Funny. Some of us see zone as cure for poor athleticism while others see it as a tool for better athletes to use.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

Interesting, I thought purdue was to quick to shoot and not enough inside looks...to penalize Nebraska inside. I saw teams running up and down and when it got inside it never came back out the easy way like it was early in this game. 3 pts on the perimeter is not worth as much as 3 inside.

The ball never coming back out was my biggest complaint in the Nebraska game. I felt like there were a lot of possessions where the ball went in and everything just stopped as Biggie tried to make a play. Last night I felt like the ball kept moving and I wasn't watching isolation ball. I also felt like the bigs were catching the ball in a better position to be successful.

 

[Boiler Wolf]

The ball never coming back out was my biggest complaint in the Nebraska game. I felt like there were a lot of possessions where the ball went in and everything just stopped as Biggie tried to make a play. Last night I felt like the ball kept moving and I wasn't watching isolation ball. I also felt like the bigs were catching the ball in a better position to be successful.

Biggie does a good job of passing from the high post, but when double teamed down low, he really struggles and rarely passes back out. Reminds me of Leslie Johnson on the women's team years ago. Once the ball went into her it was a basket, missed shot, or a TO.

 

[tjreese]

The ball never coming back out was my biggest complaint in the Nebraska game. I felt like there were a lot of possessions where the ball went in and everything just stopped as Biggie tried to make a play. Last night I felt like the ball kept moving and I wasn't watching isolation ball. I also felt like the bigs were catching the ball in a better position to be successful.

Yeah I think the issue was lack of execution rather than too many looks inside