Wow, what a poor loss

[Dryfly88]

last night was perfect for zone defense... Minnesota is not a good outside shooting team but very athletic and long... perfect to play zone against to not give you inside looks and penetration..

but nope, stick in man to man no matter the matchup or situation.. that is why I am not a fan of Painter right now. Is he an awful coach? Of course not. But he is stubborn and refuses to make certain changes that need to be made.

You're going to get killed by those that hate it whenever zone talk comes up. So I will be the first to try and jump in and agree with you. I do not hate CMP and I don't want him gone. What I would like to see is an ability to adapt on defense. Once it was clear that MN was taking advantage of us with high ball screens and dribble drive it would have been great if we would have been prepared to go zone even for a few possessions to see if we could force a change on their part. Obviously this can't be done if it hasn't been practiced.

I don't for a minute believe that there isn't time to work on both. I watch too much college b-ball (ask my wife) and I see too many teams that have both tools in their bag to buy that we can't also. It doesn't mean it has to be our primary defense, but it can be a change that can force the opponent to try a different approach. Maybe MN would have still beat us, I just would prefer that they have to make some sort of adjustment in doing so instead of beating us with basically 2 plays.

 

[nagemj02]

You're going to get killed by those that hate it whenever zone talk comes up. So I will be the first to try and jump in and agree with you. I do not hate CMP and I don't want him gone. What I would like to see is an ability to adapt on defense. Once it was clear that MN was taking advantage of us with high ball screens and dribble drive it would have been great if we would have been prepared to go zone even for a few possessions to see if we could force a change on their part. Obviously this can't be done if it hasn't been practiced.

I don't for a minute believe that there isn't time to work on both. I watch too much college b-ball (ask my wife) and I see too many teams that have both tools in their bag to buy that we can't also. It doesn't mean it has to be our primary defense, but it can be a change that can force the opponent to try a different approach. Maybe MN would have still beat us, I just would prefer that they have to make some sort of adjustment in doing so instead of beating us with basically 2 plays.

+1

 

[nagemj02]

Exactly, I have seen a lot of games where teams have multiple defensive strategies through the course of the game and it helped at one point or another. As an example, here's a classic NCAA Tournament game (from 1990: #1 overall seed Oklahoma vs. #8 seed North Carolina) where both teams used multiple looks on D and it helped them:

If Oklahoma can play a 1-3-1 matchup zone, a 1-3-1 half-court trap, a 2-3 zone, and man-to-man in the same game and North Carolina can play a 2-3 zone, a 2-1-2, and man-to-man in the same game, I think it's safe to say that Painter and the assistants have time to practice defenses other than man-to-man with their team(s).

 

[BuilderBob6]

We have the wrong personnel for a zone. I really wish people would educate themselves.
Minny would have penetrated the zone as well, easily.
They shot the ball pretty well last night IIRC.

 

[Dryfly88]

We have the wrong personnel for a zone. I really wish people would educate themselves.
Minny would have penetrated the zone as well, easily.
They shot the ball pretty well last night IIRC.

I really hate it when people use the condescending tone like you just did. You have no idea what kind of experience/background people have and to suggest that you know more than they do is insulting. On top of that you are incorrect in saying we have the wrong personnel for it. Properly taught a zone can be used by any team and certainly at the D1 level with the athletes available to a coach.

CMP does not believe in a zone. It doesn't mean he is a bad coach, but he is choosing to not have all tools at his disposal. You say that MN would have easily penetrated a zone. You have absolutely no way of knowing that because you have never seen PU implement one against them. Maybe they would have, or maybe they would have made 3 after 3 against it. I would like to suggest that maybe they wouldn't have and I would like to have a chance to see. I can tell you one thing that is not in doubt, we could not stop them one on one from getting anywhere they wanted to go and yet we stayed with the one defense that we play for 45 minutes.

I'm not going to suggest I know more than anyone on this board because I don't know any of you. I will just suggest that if you watch more than PU basketball you will get a better perspective of how changing defenses can alter the flow and decisions an opponent has to make. It isn't a guarantee of success, there is no such bullet, but it can be very effective in forcing an opponent to make adjustments. That's what I would have liked to have seen last night.

 

[nagemj02]

I really hate it when people use the condescending tone like you just did. You have no idea what kind of experience/background people have and to suggest that you know more than they do is insulting. On top of that you are incorrect in saying we have the wrong personnel for it. Properly taught a zone can be used by any team and certainly at the D1 level with the athletes available to a coach.

CMP does not believe in a zone. It doesn't mean he is a bad coach, but he is choosing to not have all tools at his disposal. You say that MN would have easily penetrated a zone. You have absolutely no way of knowing that because you have never seen PU implement one against them. Maybe they would have, or maybe they would have made 3 after 3 against it. I would like to suggest that maybe they wouldn't have and I would like to have a chance to see. I can tell you one thing that is not in doubt, we could not stop them one on one from getting anywhere they wanted to go and yet we stayed with the one defense that we play for 45 minutes.

I'm not going to suggest I know more than anyone on this board because I don't know any of you. I will just suggest that if you watch more than PU basketball you will get a better perspective of how changing defenses can alter the flow and decisions an opponent has to make. It isn't a guarantee of success, there is no such bullet, but it can be very effective in forcing an opponent to make adjustments. That's what I would have liked to have seen last night.

co-sign

The classic game I linked above is a perfect example of how changing defenses throughout a game can help one (or both) teams.

 

[TC4THREE]

co-sign

The classic game I linked above is a perfect example of how changing defenses throughout a game can help one (or both) teams.

There's been alot of big games won by coaches who only play man-to-man defense too. One game hardly makes a convincing case.

 

[BuilderBob6]

I really hate it when people use the condescending tone like you just did. You have no idea what kind of experience/background people have and to suggest that you know more than they do is insulting. On top of that you are incorrect in saying we have the wrong personnel for it. Properly taught a zone can be used by any team and certainly at the D1 level with the athletes available to a coach.

CMP does not believe in a zone. It doesn't mean he is a bad coach, but he is choosing to not have all tools at his disposal. You say that MN would have easily penetrated a zone. You have absolutely no way of knowing that because you have never seen PU implement one against them. Maybe they would have, or maybe they would have made 3 after 3 against it. I would like to suggest that maybe they wouldn't have and I would like to have a chance to see. I can tell you one thing that is not in doubt, we could not stop them one on one from getting anywhere they wanted to go and yet we stayed with the one defense that we play for 45 minutes.

I'm not going to suggest I know more than anyone on this board because I don't know any of you. I will just suggest that if you watch more than PU basketball you will get a better perspective of how changing defenses can alter the flow and decisions an opponent has to make. It isn't a guarantee of success, there is no such bullet, but it can be very effective in forcing an opponent to make adjustments. That's what I would have liked to have seen last night.

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings.
I have no problem with changing defenses to shake things up, to slow down the opponent. It works well in the college game.
There are several ways to beat a zone. Penetration, ball movement, picks, and outside shooting among them.
We have no quickness or speed in our primary players, less than average I would say. IMO the quicker guards would have little problem penetrating our zone. If we do happen to rotate and stop the first move, I don't believe we have the speed or quickness to recover against the kick out. Good ball rotation would kill our slower players.
Good zone teams have players with length and athleticism than can cut down the passing and driving lanes. Not us.
When we tighten the zone to stop the penetration we'll get killed from 3.
If you want to take away Biggie as a dominant rebounder put him in a zone. Teams typically don't rebound as well defensively out of a zone. You'll be putting him on one side of the court.
I could go on but you have probably made up your mind based on your post.
Painter is moving to recruit more quickness and athleticism. I actually think he may experiment with the zone again when he gets the proper type of players. Until then, a zone from us might hold up a team for a possession or two at best. JMHO

 

[Boiler8285]

All the arguing about adjustments on D or offense is moot. We will never know because Painter will stubbornly stick with his man D and his very predictable offense. This is what drives everyone crazy, it only works when you have the most talent. We will win 60% of our games but rarely beat teams with elite talent and sometimes get beat by a less talented team that gets hot and no adjustments are made. After 12 seasons I don't expect much more than the sweet 16 everyone couple years for as long as Painter chooses to stay. Keady 2.0 without the fire.

 

[krazyjvilled]

You're going to get killed by those that hate it whenever zone talk comes up. So I will be the first to try and jump in and agree with you. I do not hate CMP and I don't want him gone. What I would like to see is an ability to adapt on defense. Once it was clear that MN was taking advantage of us with high ball screens and dribble drive it would have been great if we would have been prepared to go zone even for a few possessions to see if we could force a change on their part. Obviously this can't be done if it hasn't been practiced.

I don't for a minute believe that there isn't time to work on both. I watch too much college b-ball (ask my wife) and I see too many teams that have both tools in their bag to buy that we can't also. It doesn't mean it has to be our primary defense, but it can be a change that can force the opponent to try a different approach. Maybe MN would have still beat us, I just would prefer that they have to make some sort of adjustment in doing so instead of beating us with basically 2 plays.

Exactly this.. there is no reason to NOT be able to pull it out for quick stretches to shake things up and surprise opposing offenses. But Painter refuses

 

[krazyjvilled]

We have the wrong personnel for a zone. I really wish people would educate themselves.
Minny would have penetrated the zone as well, easily.
They shot the ball pretty well last night IIRC.

Um, you must not understand bball. A zone is for teams that have trouble containing the ball handler or against more athletic, fast teams... It more so gives up outside shots, but clogs the inside. We absolutely have the personel to play zone if we think we have it to play man

 

[krazyjvilled]

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings.
I have no problem with changing defenses to shake things up, to slow down the opponent. It works well in the college game.
There are several ways to beat a zone. Penetration, ball movement, picks, and outside shooting among them.
We have no quickness or speed in our primary players, less than average I would say. IMO the quicker guards would have little problem penetrating our zone. If we do happen to rotate and stop the first move, I don't believe we have the speed or quickness to recover against the kick out. Good ball rotation would kill our slower players.
Good zone teams have players with length and athleticism than can cut down the passing and driving lanes. Not us.
When we tighten the zone to stop the penetration we'll get killed from 3.
If you want to take away Biggie as a dominant rebounder put him in a zone. Teams typically don't rebound as well defensively out of a zone. You'll be putting him on one side of the court.
I could go on but you have probably made up your mind based on your post.
Painter is moving to recruit more quickness and athleticism. I actually think he may experiment with the zone again when he gets the proper type of players. Until then, a zone from us might hold up a team for a possession or two at best. JMHO

but playing man to man defense where teams draw Haas and Biggie out on high ball screens much better fits our personel though right?

LMAO please dude, stop

 

[Dryfly88]

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings.
I have no problem with changing defenses to shake things up, to slow down the opponent. It works well in the college game.
There are several ways to beat a zone. Penetration, ball movement, picks, and outside shooting among them.
We have no quickness or speed in our primary players, less than average I would say. IMO the quicker guards would have little problem penetrating our zone. If we do happen to rotate and stop the first move, I don't believe we have the speed or quickness to recover against the kick out. Good ball rotation would kill our slower players.
Good zone teams have players with length and athleticism than can cut down the passing and driving lanes. Not us.
If you want to take away Biggie as a dominant rebounder put him in a zone. Teams typically don't rebound as well defensively out of a zone. You'll be putting him on one side of the court.
I could go on but you have probably made up your mind based on your post.
Painter is moving to recruit more quickness and athleticism. I actually think he may experiment with the zone again when he gets the proper type of players. Until then, a zone from us might hold up a team for a possession or two at best. JMHO

Bingo, that's all that was needed last night. A possession or two at the right time can make all the difference. I'm glad that you said it. Because that is exactly what I and many others have been saying for some time.

You didn't hurt my feelings, I'm too old for that. I just said I hate it when people are condescending.

 

[BuilderBob6]

Um, you must not understand bball. A zone is for teams that have trouble containing the ball handler or against more athletic, fast teams... It more so gives up outside shots, but clogs the inside. We absolutely have the personel to play zone if we think we have it to play man

I don't know anything about bastekbal. I just copied and pasted that from Google.
A zone can be used for the reason you suggest. Not sure Syracuse looks at it that way.
The only way we would stop penetration with our players is to pack it in. If you want to try to win a game while giving up open threes all night be my guest.

 

[BuilderBob6]

Bingo, that's all that was needed last night. A possession or two at the right time can make all the difference. I'm glad that you said it. Because that is exactly what I and many others have been saying for some time.

You didn't hurt my feelings, I'm too old for that. I just said I hate it when people are condescending.

Then what's the point? Even if the zone works a time or two but you can't sustain it then you end up back in the man to man. In the college basketball games I watch......when a team goes to the zone and it works, they usually keep using it until it doesn't work anymore. If you agree with me that we would be unable to maintain an effective zone, that option is not there.
If you have knowledge of zone defenses beyond the idea of using it a time or two in a game I would ask you to comment on my points above on why it would not be effective for our team. You said I was incorrect about our personnel. If not, then your point about me being condescending would be moot.

 

[krazyjvilled]

I don't know anything about bastekbal. I just copied and pasted that from Google.
A zone can be used for the reason you suggest. Not sure Syracuse looks at it that way.
The only way we would stop penetration with our players is to pack it in. If you want to try to win a game while giving up open threes all night be my guest.

you do exactly that vs teams with poor outside shooting... Look up Minnesota's 3 point shooting. A smart coach would have played zone against them for atleast stretches

 

[PUBV]

Then what's the point? Even if the zone works a time or two but you can't sustain it then you end up back in the man to man. In the college basketball games I watch......when a team goes to the zone and it works, they usually keep using it until it doesn't work anymore. If you agree with me that we would be unable to maintain an effective zone, that option is not there.
If you have knowledge of zone defenses beyond the idea of using it a time or two in a game I would ask you to comment on my points above on why it would not be effective for our team. You said I was incorrect about our personnel. If not, then your point about me being condescending would be moot.

Hopefully, if your coach actually does employ more than 1 defensive strategy a game, he would be astute enough to stick with the one that is working best during a game. Whether it be man to man, one of the MANY different zone defenses, full court pressure, etc. Zone defenses can be employed by less athletic teams because players are responsible to cover a zone of the court, hence the name, as opposed to trying to chase quicker players all over the court

 

[BoiledSteel]

you do exactly that vs teams with poor outside shooting... Look up Minnesota's 3 point shooting. A smart coach would have played zone against them for atleast stretches

No. zone wouldn't have worked because we had too many turnovers. I don't get the boner people have for zone. There is zero legit evidence it would work here. None.

But then again there is a reason everyone is posting here and not coaching.

 

[BuilderBob6]

Hopefully, if your coach actually does employ more than 1 defensive strategy a game, he would be astute enough to stick with the one that is working best during a game. Whether it be man to man, one of the MANY different zone defenses, full court pressure, etc. Zone defenses can be employed by less athletic teams because players are responsible to cover a zone of the court, hence the name, as opposed to trying to chase quicker players all over the court

Lol. Thanks for the education.
Zones can over up the defensive deficiencies of individual players, that is one of the purposes. My point is we have one player on the team that is athletic and quick imo, that's Carsen. A zone is not effective when most of the team is slow, as is the case with our team. Basil could be considered athletic but he is not on the floor much.
I submit our zone would be ineffective with our personnel. Using it for a trip or two might catch them off guard initially but we would be unable to maintain it.

 

[Dryfly88]

Then what's the point? Even if the zone works a time or two but you can't sustain it then you end up back in the man to man. In the college basketball games I watch......when a team goes to the zone and it works, they usually keep using it until it doesn't work anymore. If you agree with me that we would be unable to maintain an effective zone, that option is not there.
If you have knowledge of zone defenses beyond the idea of using it a time or two in a game I would ask you to comment on my points above on why it would not be effective for our team. You said I was incorrect about our personnel. If not, then your point about me being condescending would be moot.

I would love to comment on it:

1. Personnel: 2/3 zone - Basil and CE at top, VE and DM on wings CS in the middle. There is no reason those 5 guys could not be taught the zone principles and be physically capable of executing. That line-up also doesn't hurt us on the offensive end. If you wanted a little more offense then switch out Basil with RC.

2. We lost in overtime. By definition that means that a stop or two was all that was needed to swing the game in our favor. Multiply that by sprinkling in the zone throughout the game and maybe it's more than 1 or 2 possessions.

3. Obviously if the zone is being effective you stick with it until it's not. Maybe it gets you several empty trips by the opposition, even better. The point I was making was that even if it only gave you a possession or two it can be effective in breaking the momentum of the other team.

I wasn't saying nor have I ever said that implementing some zone defenses was a magic bullet that guaranteed a win. I have simply suggested that having something else to try on defense when MTM isn't working would be nice to have. I really don't understand the logic of not wanting that option. What is the downside? MTM can still be the staple and only go to the zone if MTM is not working.

 

[Dryfly88]

No. zone wouldn't have worked because we had too many turnovers. I don't get the boner people have for zone. There is zero legit evidence it would work here. None.

But then again there is a reason everyone is posting here and not coaching.

Can we please stop with the "If you're not a coach you can't have an opinion on here"? I think we can all agree we aren't coaches (at least not at a D1 level). It's a college basketball message board. If you only want opinions from actual college coaches it's going to be crickets in here.

Just because someone has a different opinion than you on PU basketball it doesn't automatically make that person unqualified to post on here. I generally like CMP and have never called for him to be let go. I'm simply asking that we have some variety on the defensive end of the floor when our staple MTM defense isn't working. There are several others like myself that have been asking the same thing.

You say there is "Zero legit evidence it would work here. None." I would suggest that the reason there is no evidence is because it has never been tried. Additionally, I don't have a boner about zone. I'm just asking that it be an option that we have if MTM isn't working. Seems pretty logical and not a unique idea as many teams utilize that strategy.

 

[PUBV]

No. zone wouldn't have worked because we had too many turnovers. I don't get the boner people have for zone. There is zero legit evidence it would work here. None.

But then again there is a reason everyone is posting here and not coaching.

I am not connecting the dots between zone wouldn't have worked because we had too many turnovers????? Was there legit evidence that man to man would work?? You must enjoy watching another teams player go off while we flail around guarding him in the same fashion for an entire game. I apologize for my lack of coaching experience Mr Wooden.

 

[SIBoiler2]

When a team is red hot and hits it's first 8 or so shots it's usually gonna be a long night for their opponent. We've seen it from both sides. What happened against Minny is unlikely to happen very many times this year but when it's your night it's your night.

 

[TC4THREE]

If you just want to give up outside shots you can accomplish the same thing in man-to-man by just taking another step or so back from the ball if you're matched up with someone who can beat you off the dribble.

 

[Dryfly88]

If you just want to give up outside shots you can accomplish the same thing in man-to-man by just taking another step or so back from the ball if you're matched up with someone who can beat you off the dribble.

TC: I agree with that also. In our section Sunday several of us said multiple times that PJ just needed to back up and force the outside shot and stop allowing penetration. That would have been an "adjustment" that could have been made and I wish it would have been tried.

Is it possible Mason would have just buried 3 after 3? Yes. But it is also possible that he wouldn't have and it would have made MN adjust their approach. Zone, adjustment in MTM are both the variety that I and others would like to see. As I said earlier, I don't have a boner about zone. I'm looking for variety on the defensive end that forces the opponent to have to adjust and not just keep beating us with the same thing.

Just for a moment assume you are Thad Matta. Preparing for Thursdays game on offense you have only one thing to work on with your team. You know the point guard is going to get guarded from the time they catch the ball and then you will face MTM in the half-court. He can take it to the bank there won't be anything else he needs to prepare his team for. I think that is a mistake and would just like to see CMP add some variety on the defensive end.

 

[BoiledSteel]

I am not connecting the dots between zone wouldn't have worked because we had too many turnovers?????

Yes because my point is they scored 19 points off of 14 turnovers. Eliminating half of those and we we win. The type of defense you use is irrelevant when you keep turning it over.

 

[Boiler Buck]

We just couldn't get out of our own way tonight. We should have never lost to that team. Poor shot selection at key times and absolutely nothing from Haas is going to spell disaster every time. Hope we can steal a couple on the road.

Well I think Haas & Dakota must have partied too hard the night before(New Year's Eve Hangovers).....their play sure looked like it. Hopefully, their play goes back to the outstanding performances of pre-Minn....real soon.

 

[BuilderBob6]

I would love to comment on it:

1. Personnel: 2/3 zone - Basil and CE at top, VE and DM on wings CS in the middle. There is no reason those 5 guys could not be taught the zone principles and be physically capable of executing. That line-up also doesn't hurt us on the offensive end. If you wanted a little more offense then switch out Basil with RC.

2. We lost in overtime. By definition that means that a stop or two was all that was needed to swing the game in our favor. Multiply that by sprinkling in the zone throughout the game and maybe it's more than 1 or 2 possessions.

3. Obviously if the zone is being effective you stick with it until it's not. Maybe it gets you several empty trips by the opposition, even better. The point I was making was that even if it only gave you a possession or two it can be effective in breaking the momentum of the other team.

I wasn't saying nor have I ever said that implementing some zone defenses was a magic bullet that guaranteed a win. I have simply suggested that having something else to try on defense when MTM isn't working would be nice to have. I really don't understand the logic of not wanting that option. What is the downside? MTM can still be the staple and only go to the zone if MTM is not working.

1. So is that gonna be your zone package? You bring that group in when you want to play it? When you switch out of the zone do you make substitutions again? Substitution patterns are a big deal with coaches. Who plays with who, who is hot. You make it sound like the offense is an afterthought even with switching out Cline for Basil.......who is hardly seeing the floor as it is.
If you're playing a 2-3, you do realize that the guys on top have to be constantly moving to the wing and back based on the ball rotation? Cline can't move well enough, nor PJ, and probably not Dakota. Carsen moves well but he is not sound enough fundamentally at this point, especially if he is going for steals.
2. That is a fallacy. You assume that the one or two possessions would be favorable to our team. We could have used the zone for two possessions, they could have made two threes and never made it to OT.
3. Maybe the zone puts you farther behind. If you watch enough college basketball you will see that coaches don't just try things to see if they work (unless it's Crean).. They do things they have practiced, things that have worked in the past. If it's not working they want to try and do it better.
It's always funny to see fans harp on things we are doing wrong, that's there's always something we can do to change the outcome. Sometimes nothing you try works because the other team is doing their job better. Mason played with a lot of confidence and had a career game. Their team shot threes better than they usually do. Pj is undermanned against a player like Mason. Carsen couldn't handle him either. We don't have long athletic big men that can hedge on the screen and defend well.

Lastly, if you are saying we should have used the zone against Minny........when we have not played it or practiced it all year........then, sorry, you don't know enough about the game. Contrary to popular belief, playing a zone effectively is not easy, not something you just do on a whim. It would have had to be instituted long ago before the games ever started. Players have to know where to be and how to rotate against many types of zone offenses. Rebounding, blocking out is very different as well.
We did try to play zone a few years ago. It didn't go very well.

 

[BoiledSteel]

1. So is that gonna be your zone package? You bring that group in when you want to play it? When you switch out of the zone do you make substitutions again? Substitution patterns are a big deal with coaches. Who plays with who, who is hot. You make it sound like the offense is an afterthought even with switching out Cline for Basil.......who is hardly seeing the floor as it is.
If you're playing a 2-3, you do realize that the guys on top have to be constantly moving to the wing and back based on the ball rotation? Cline can't move well enough, nor PJ, and probably not Dakota. Carsen moves well but he is not sound enough fundamentally at this point, especially if he is going for steals.
2. That is a fallacy. You assume that the one or two possessions would be favorable to our team. We could have used the zone for two possessions, they could have made two threes and never made it to OT.
3. Maybe the zone puts you farther behind. If you watch enough college basketball you will see that coaches don't just try things to see if they work (unless it's Crean).. They do things they have practiced, things that have worked in the past. If it's not working they want to try and do it better.
It's always funny to see fans harp on things we are doing wrong, that's there's always something we can do to change the outcome. Sometimes nothing you try works because the other team is doing their job better. Mason played with a lot of confidence and had a career game. Their team shot threes better than they usually do. Pj is undermanned against a player like Mason. Carsen couldn't handle him either. We don't have long athletic big men that can hedge on the screen and defend well.

Lastly, if you are saying we should have used the zone against Minny........when we have not played it or practiced it all year........then, sorry, you don't know enough about the game. Contrary to popular belief, playing a zone effectively is not easy, not something you just do on a whim. It would have had to be instituted long ago before the games ever started. Players have to know where to be and how to rotate against many types of zone offenses. Rebounding, blocking out is very different as well.
We did try to play zone a few years ago. It didn't go very well.

You sir, are a genius. Brilliantly said.

 

[Dryfly88]

1. So is that gonna be your zone package? You bring that group in when you want to play it? When you switch out of the zone do you make substitutions again? Substitution patterns are a big deal with coaches. Who plays with who, who is hot. You make it sound like the offense is an afterthought even with switching out Cline for Basil.......who is hardly seeing the floor as it is.
If you're playing a 2-3, you do realize that the guys on top have to be constantly moving to the wing and back based on the ball rotation? Cline can't move well enough, nor PJ, and probably not Dakota. Carsen moves well but he is not sound enough fundamentally at this point, especially if he is going for steals.
2. That is a fallacy. You assume that the one or two possessions would be favorable to our team. We could have used the zone for two possessions, they could have made two threes and never made it to OT.
3. Maybe the zone puts you farther behind. If you watch enough college basketball you will see that coaches don't just try things to see if they work (unless it's Crean).. They do things they have practiced, things that have worked in the past. If it's not working they want to try and do it better.
It's always funny to see fans harp on things we are doing wrong, that's there's always something we can do to change the outcome. Sometimes nothing you try works because the other team is doing their job better. Mason played with a lot of confidence and had a career game. Their team shot threes better than they usually do. Pj is undermanned against a player like Mason. Carsen couldn't handle him either. We don't have long athletic big men that can hedge on the screen and defend well.

Lastly, if you are saying we should have used the zone against Minny........when we have not played it or practiced it all year........then, sorry, you don't know enough about the game. Contrary to popular belief, playing a zone effectively is not easy, not something you just do on a whim. It would have had to be instituted long ago before the games ever started. Players have to know where to be and how to rotate against many types of zone offenses. Rebounding, blocking out is very different as well.
We did try to play zone a few years ago. It didn't go very well.

Where did you ever get the idea that I was suggesting we just implement a zone without practicing it?? Of course you have to practice it. Did you think I thought CMP should just call a time-out and in the huddle say "ok guys we're going to try a zone now"? That is exactly the point, why are we not prepared to have more than one defense as an option? If you thought that, then I'm sorry you don't know enough about the game (see how that really doesn't help anything)?

The offense is not an afterthought. The group I suggested on defense are perfectly capable of producing on the offensive end as well.

The fallacy is somehow thinking that guys can't be taught or able to play a zone but they can play MTM. Where did you get that idea? Are our players somehow so unique that they are only able to play one kind of defense? Of course not, they are only taught to play one.

Lastly, once again, I'm not suggesting a change in defense would have guaranteed a win. What I'm saying is that when your current defense is getting exposed be prepared to try something else. Zone, sagging MTM (as mentioned earlier) something other than the current defense that is getting torched.

I don't understand why there are a group of you that whenever anything is questioned, even in a reasonable way you seem to take it as an affront to PU basketball or CMP. As if we should just accept everything and every decision without question. I generally like the direction the program is going and have no desire for a coaching change, but that certainly doesn't mean that every decision CMP makes is correct or should go without challenge. I'm still waiting for someone to say why being prepared with multiple defenses is a bad thing?

 

[BoiledSteel]

I'm still waiting for someone to say why being prepared with multiple defenses is a bad thing?

Because doing that takes time away from practicing in other areas of more importance that truly will impact the game. Like turnovers and proper positioning.

Plus some of you think there is an infinite amount of time to practice and there isn't. Zone wouldn't of done anything for us considering there were many other issues that we currently DO work on that weren't executed. Basically you create another point of failure without shoring up anything else. How does the saying go? Jake of all trades, master of none. Let's master the things we already know before we go throwing in another wrinkle that won't impact things much anyway.

 

[Dryfly88]

Because doing that takes time away from practicing in other areas of more importance that truly will impact the game. Like turnovers and proper positioning.

Plus some of you think there is an infinite amount of time to practice and there isn't. Zone wouldn't of done anything for us considering there were many other issues that we currently DO work on that weren't executed. Basically you create another point of failure without shoring up anything else. How does the saying go? Jake of all trades, master of none. Let's master the things we already know before we go throwing in another wrinkle that won't impact things much anyway.

I don't believe there is an infinite amount of time. I'm aware of the NCAA time restrictions. Just seems strange that a lot of other teams are able to be prepared with multiple defenses but we don't have the time for that.

We'll never know about the bolded part unless we try it.

I won't argue about the turnovers, they hurt us badly. I'm just not seeing the connection between cutting down on turnovers and being prepared for multiple defenses? What would we be doing in practice to cut down on turnovers in a game that would prevent us from also working on defense? Seems like the two could actually go together.

I know there aren't many of us in this camp and I also know (or at least think I know) we won't see anything except MTM the rest of the season because CMP just doesn't believe in anything else. I just think it's a topic that is worth discussing and I'm hopeful that maybe in the future he will change his mind.

 

[tjreese]

You're going to get killed by those that hate it whenever zone talk comes up. So I will be the first to try and jump in and agree with you. I do not hate CMP and I don't want him gone. What I would like to see is an ability to adapt on defense. Once it was clear that MN was taking advantage of us with high ball screens and dribble drive it would have been great if we would have been prepared to go zone even for a few possessions to see if we could force a change on their part. Obviously this can't be done if it hasn't been practiced.

I don't for a minute believe that there isn't time to work on both. I watch too much college b-ball (ask my wife) and I see too many teams that have both tools in their bag to buy that we can't also. It doesn't mean it has to be our primary defense, but it can be a change that can force the opponent to try a different approach. Maybe MN would have still beat us, I just would prefer that they have to make some sort of adjustment in doing so instead of beating us with basically 2 plays.

***********************not directed at you or anyone**************
Is the assumption that when the appearance of man is continued that no adjustments are made? It seems that people think man is only played one way and zone is only played one way and that is not correct. Purdue was beat partially due to not shooting as well on the perimeter on offense. Purdue had 7 more turnovers than Minny and that wasn’t caused by not playing a zone. Is that 3 extra baskets? Minny blocked 8 more shots than Purdue and that too wasn’t caused by a zone. Is that 4 extra baskets? Purdue shot 7 more shots from the 3 than Minny and only had 1 more make and the ones made by MInny were shot by people that usually don’t shoot near as well, but were hot that day. Is that 3 extra baskets for Purdue? Minny hit the first 8 shots and hit several hard shots. Mason was great and a few others played perhaps better than expected.

The game went into OT and obviously there were a LOT of things that could have easily fell different and Purdue won. With some of the athleticism of Minny, how many baskets and offensive rebounds did Purdue prevent Minny from getting or do we think the board game would have been the same in a zone? How many of Masons shots were at the rim? He did drive and hit some runners outside the lane.

In this overtime game that Purdue missed a lot of bunnies inside, turned it over, shot worse than usual from the perimeter would a zone have made a difference in the hypothetical layups by the MInny guards versus the makes on the perimeter? What was the plus and minus of a zone, because it appears (not directed at you or anyone in particular) that many think that if things are not working well in a man that it needs abandoned because a zone has no or little flaws and that a decision in error can be recaptured in a conference where it is common for the game to be decided by a couple of baskets or couple of minutes in the course of a game? Course the other side is that if the zone helped…it may make that difference of a basket or so as well. Roll the dice as it may be a great decision or a bad decision?

Ya know a zone for some duration “may” have allowed the poor showing by Purdue to have been enough…I don’t know. However, it appears that when zone discussion comes up, people do not understand that every defense has different strengths and weaknesses and to date I have never seen anyone proclaim what alignment in a zone they want to see, whether it is a straight up zone, match-up zone and whether they would combine any traps out of it…along naturally with the strengths and weaknesses of the zone they want to see employed…just so long as it is a zone. Sure, I too would like to witness in rare occasions for a possession or so a zone from time to time, but I don’t see a lot of difference in a balanced court between what can be done in a man versus zone if you want to sell out to area assignments. If a court is balanced on O and they generally are for almost all teams…all game…the defense is already in zone areas.

Now, let’s take the offensive side against a zone…say a 2-3 set and it can be pure zone or match-up. What if the offensive team places their players beside the players in a zone…has the zone now been forced to play due to what the offense did a resulting man defense? Now, no coach or very few matches up to a pure zone, but rather likes them in a zone and places people in gaps…where the zone isn’t. Remember the offensive coach decides how they want to play against a zone. If the coach thought that… damn…I like them trying to play us man on man more than any doubles and such …he can place his players near the zone players, but no….they would rather they stay in their areas of the court in a zone and place his team where they are not. Why doesn’t the offensive coach force the defense to man up in their zone if he would rather go against more individual man? Nobody does…

None of this is to say that a zone might not have made a difference in a few baskets…either way perhaps? What I would like to see besides a little better athlete and yet skillful, along with intensity and smart play was for sometimes Purdue to run a set that allows more of a clear out for Purdue’s match-up advantage in driving the ball. The second thing I would like to see is if a double on the post by a big on D against Purdue is susceptible to a backscreen by a Purdue PG on the player on D doubling the post for a potential lob around the basket at the defensive PG has to cover that play due to the post double.

Sometimes timeouts don’t do anything in particular but still break the momentum…a zone offers that potential on the plus side. Again none of this is directed at you dryfly88 or anyone in particular. It just appears that a zone is a catch all when Purdue doesn’t win. This game could have been easily won and zone wouldn’t be discussed and yet I know that a zone…just by being different sometimes changes the flow. People can debate Haas for the jump ball in OT and a possession or such and there is merit to both sides. Well, I know my efforts are wasted and have been around enough to know that many fans are settled in what they think they want whether man, zone or player personnel. I expect Purdue to have a tough one at Ohio State. OSU has a lot of individual talent as do many teams.

Man is played by each player a little different for each team and throughout the game many times. LOTS of adjustments go on in man…as they would in a zone as well.

 

[Dryfly88]

***********************not directed at you or anyone**************
Is the assumption that when the appearance of man is continued that no adjustments are made? It seems that people think man is only played one way and zone is only played one way and that is not correct. Purdue was beat partially due to not shooting as well on the perimeter on offense. Purdue had 7 more turnovers than Minny and that wasn’t caused by not playing a zone. Is that 3 extra baskets? Minny blocked 8 more shots than Purdue and that too wasn’t caused by a zone. Is that 4 extra baskets? Purdue shot 7 more shots from the 3 than Minny and only had 1 more make and the ones made by MInny were shot by people that usually don’t shoot near as well, but were hot that day. Is that 3 extra baskets for Purdue? Minny hit the first 8 shots and hit several hard shots. Mason was great and a few others played perhaps better than expected.

The game went into OT and obviously there were a LOT of things that could have easily fell different and Purdue won. With some of the athleticism of Minny, how many baskets and offensive rebounds did Purdue prevent Minny from getting or do we think the board game would have been the same in a zone? How many of Masons shots were at the rim? He did drive and hit some runners outside the lane.

In this overtime game that Purdue missed a lot of bunnies inside, turned it over, shot worse than usual from the perimeter would a zone have made a difference in the hypothetical layups by the MInny guards versus the makes on the perimeter? What was the plus and minus of a zone, because it appears (not directed at you or anyone in particular) that many think that if things are not working well in a man that it needs abandoned because a zone has no or little flaws and that a decision in error can be recaptured in a conference where it is common for the game to be decided by a couple of baskets or couple of minutes in the course of a game? Course the other side is that if the zone helped…it may make that difference of a basket or so as well. Roll the dice as it may be a great decision or a bad decision?

Ya know a zone for some duration “may” have allowed the poor showing by Purdue to have been enough…I don’t know. However, it appears that when zone discussion comes up, people do not understand that every defense has different strengths and weaknesses and to date I have never seen anyone proclaim what alignment in a zone they want to see, whether it is a straight up zone, match-up zone and whether they would combine any traps out of it…along naturally with the strengths and weaknesses of the zone they want to see employed…just so long as it is a zone. Sure, I too would like to witness in rare occasions for a possession or so a zone from time to time, but I don’t see a lot of difference in a balanced court between what can be done in a man versus zone if you want to sell out to area assignments. If a court is balanced on O and they generally are for almost all teams…all game…the defense is already in zone areas.

Now, let’s take the offensive side against a zone…say a 2-3 set and it can be pure zone or match-up. What if the offensive team places their players beside the players in a zone…has the zone now been forced to play due to what the offense did a resulting man defense? Now, no coach or very few matches up to a pure zone, but rather likes them in a zone and places people in gaps…where the zone isn’t. Remember the offensive coach decides how they want to play against a zone. If the coach thought that… damn…I like them trying to play us man on man more than any doubles and such …he can place his players near the zone players, but no….they would rather they stay in their areas of the court in a zone and place his team where they are not. Why doesn’t the offensive coach force the defense to man up in their zone if he would rather go against more individual man? Nobody does…

None of this is to say that a zone might not have made a difference in a few baskets…either way perhaps? What I would like to see besides a little better athlete and yet skillful, along with intensity and smart play was for sometimes Purdue to run a set that allows more of a clear out for Purdue’s match-up advantage in driving the ball. The second thing I would like to see is if a double on the post by a big on D against Purdue is susceptible to a backscreen by a Purdue PG on the player on D doubling the post for a potential lob around the basket at the defensive PG has to cover that play due to the post double.

Sometimes timeouts don’t do anything in particular but still break the momentum…a zone offers that potential on the plus side. Again none of this is directed at you dryfly88 or anyone in particular. It just appears that a zone is a catch all when Purdue doesn’t win. This game could have been easily won and zone wouldn’t be discussed and yet I know that a zone…just by being different sometimes changes the flow. People can debate Haas for the jump ball in OT and a possession or such and there is merit to both sides. Well, I know my efforts are wasted and have been around enough to know that many fans are settled in what they think they want whether man, zone or player personnel. I expect Purdue to have a tough one at Ohio State. OSU has a lot of individual talent as do many teams.

Man is played by each player a little different for each team and throughout the game many times. LOTS of adjustments go on in man…as they would in a zone as well.

Could you tell specifically what changes we made in our MTM defense Sunday? I was at the game and have not watched the game again, so if we made any specific changes I did not see them. What I did see was MN continue to kill us off the dribble from the top of the key. Our guards were up tight on the ball handler and couldn't keep them from penetrating.

In this thread alone I have said at least 5 times that I'm not saying a zone is the cure all or any guarantee of success. What I have called for is versatility in our defense. If you or others are saying that you saw versatility Sunday then I stand corrected but I didn't see it.

I think what happens on here is that there are a couple people that have been calling for a zone for some time. Those people also have been critical of CMP in other areas and so as soon as the talk of zone comes up from anyone there is the immediate backlash from the "defenders" of CMP. I think if you go back in this thread you will see that I predicted that exact thing. If you and others think that we have the necessary versatility on the defensive end to maximize our potential then we will just need to agree to disagree.

I appreciate your thoughts on the subject and I don't take it as directed to me particularly. I just think if we could step away from the other issues that get thrown around about fire CMP and the other junk and just look at this one thing as a stand-alone subject it might be easier to discuss. That's hard because the emotions run high on both sides and any criticism gets treated with the same medicine.

 

[tjreese]

Could you tell specifically what changes we made in our MTM defense Sunday? I was at the game and have not watched the game again, so if we made any specific changes I did not see them. What I did see was MN continue to kill us off the dribble from the top of the key. Our guards were up tight on the ball handler and couldn't keep them from penetrating.

In this thread alone I have said at least 5 times that I'm not saying a zone is the cure all or any guarantee of success. What I have called for is versatility in our defense. If you or others are saying that you saw versatility Sunday then I stand corrected but I didn't see it.

I think what happens on here is that there are a couple people that have been calling for a zone for some time. Those people also have been critical of CMP in other areas and so as soon as the talk of zone comes up from anyone there is the immediate backlash from the "defenders" of CMP. I think if you go back in this thread you will see that I predicted that exact thing. If you and others think that we have the necessary versatility on the defensive end to maximize our potential then we will just need to agree to disagree.

I appreciate your thoughts on the subject and I don't take it as directed to me particularly. I just think if we could step away from the other issues that get thrown around about fire CMP and the other junk and just look at this one thing as a stand-alone subject it might be easier to discuss. That's hard because the emotions run high on both sides and any criticism gets treated with the same medicine.

****************
What I have tried to do incessantly is to discuss the similarity between a zone and man. I've tried to list all the advantages of man and the very few advantages of zone. Others have tried to state why zones are not as effective as man in college although more popular in high school and still others have pointed out Purdue's personnel. To date it has been crickets from others in stating what a zone will do that man cannot do in a balanced court. Instead the infatuation by many that have never coached a zone or man in high school or middle school seem to think it is a cure all. I listed a lot more things on offense than what Purdue gave up hypothetically by not playing zone. I have stated numerous times that I would prefer another tool in the toolbox, but have followed that up by saying I thought the difference in learning that new tool is minimal to what can be gained in other things. When I talk about adjustments, let me just say that whether in man or zone the defense is getting tweaked all through the game unless you are blowing out the opponent. I would wager my life that in most high school games...unless you are directly involved you might only notice the more obvious tweaks as probably 99% of the people won't know. I do not know the rules on D for Minny and do NOT know Minny to have an opinion on the defensive rules. I do know though that tweaks to the opponent and through the game is standard protocol. I remember Mason shooting some runners not at the rim, but sliding outside the lane and hitting a couple of tough shots. I also remember him hitting some jumpers. Even in a 2-3 "pure" zone it is played different by different team. When I think of zone coaches that have won in the past in a respectable manner I think of the Orangemen. The zone has been Jim Boeham's D for years and obviously recruits for it. Does anyone see similar players at Purdue and Syracuse? If not, should that suggest that just maybe Purdue is not ideally suited for a zone? Again if offensive coaches put players next to the defensive alignment in a zone, didn't the offensive coach make the defense play man if that was the preferable defense to play against...and yet this never happens. Offensive players are placed in gaps and once in gaps the defense is no longer in position for the player and so the defense is in a scrambling mode. Ignoring the 3 point shooting of skilled teams or the offensive rebounding of those athletic teams against a zone along with the potential of less turnovers and more open shots, most see and advocate that a zone would stop dribble penetration. With the touch fouls on the dribble a less athletic team may have a harder time getting into defensive position and containing the dribble when he has to leave his area and move to where a player has slipped into his gap and now recover on him without starting in good position. The reality is that most coaches play man. It appears to me that the proof should be on why a zone is better to play some than man since most coaches don't do this. Instead it is an obvious sounding board when a player penetrates even though few dribble to the rim in man when man is set rather than some transition.

Relative to a 2-3 pure zone and not shading certain players by shifting the zone, I am more familiar with the two on top having their inside feet forward as to cheat or prevent the dribble penetration into the lane by forcing the ball to the wing. The middle plays the side on mid and behind on high posts and on top on the low post . The down two outside play fairly honest and gets on baseline side of offensive player with middle adjusting from playing under to on top. When the ball is baseline that way, the base covers the passing lane on the baseline side and the middle is on top side hopefully cover that side leaving a very small if any window for post entry. Sometimes that would be reversed with still playing under on low posts with back two forcing more baseline and trying to beat them when they penetrated. Penetrations still happens against zones as I know you know. Weakside players never go past half the width of the lane. Obviously this like man would get tweaked depending not only on the other team's personnel, but the respective comparisons of their personnel and yours. Once a few passes are made all zones look the same. Think about that. Once a couple of passes are made all zones look the same. The subtle result of that is that whatever alignment or zone you thought was positioned best looks just like those you didn't think was positioned best. Sometimes adjustments if only for a couple of minutes is huge. I remember a PG for a team (previous A.D. /principal for Zionsville) playing in teh sectional. Kid was a great playmaker and passed up shots all year. He had a scorer on his team and wanted to cheat on him to start the game. We thought... can we buy a few minutes and get the lead and play from in front. Decided to let the kid shoot from the top of the key but no closer than that. Instead he came down and hit three in a row from the top of the key (just two pointers back then) to jump up 6..and we lost by 6. We had beat them by 2 in OT at home earlier. I guess what I am trying to say is that there is a gamble in a lot of decisions and even if that decision is sound...based upon lots of data it may go against you. Still, you play the odds as it is the only smart thing to do day in and day out. Six of the 3's made by Minny were made by guys that don't make them...and what if they miss like usual? Does the zone still get discussed?

I would like to see a zone in the tool box, but I do not think it would be as large as other things in any of the games Purdue lost and have said that before for this team. I already pointed out a lot of things I considered bigger than the potential to stop the dribble ...IF the problem was position and not effort since those same effortless players would also be in a zone. And BTW teh others could have given up the perimeter like a zone and just helped more in man. I'm much more agreeable if someone says I would have liked to have played a zone around the such and such time for such and such time due to this and that and would use this zone to stop that with this personnel and then either continued it or changed to man with different personnel...ALWAYS understanding that those same players for the D must play O as well. But even then if we don't know the other team well and know our team, those thoughts may not be as sound as we want to believe. If any have scouted games I'm sure they will agree that one game or even two may not tell all you need to know about the team you are scouting. I just see it a lot more complicated than Painter is stubborn and won't use a zone. It makes a lot more sense if you believe it to just say Painter is stupid by not playing a zone since we know he wants to win more than any in this forum and has put a lot more in it than any in this forum and would reap the benefits of better decisions in his paycheck more than any of us...

none of this is aimed at those that dislike Matt...it is just the opinion of one open to a 2-3 zone, but rarely thinking the lack of the zone is the most important thing that did not go on in the game. Oh, BTW I too would like to back off on D sometimes

 

[Inspector100]

Could you tell specifically what changes we made in our MTM defense Sunday? I was at the game and have not watched the game again, so if we made any specific changes I did not see them. What I did see was MN continue to kill us off the dribble from the top of the key. Our guards were up tight on the ball handler and couldn't keep them from penetrating.

In this thread alone I have said at least 5 times that I'm not saying a zone is the cure all or any guarantee of success. What I have called for is versatility in our defense. If you or others are saying that you saw versatility Sunday then I stand corrected but I didn't see it.

I think what happens on here is that there are a couple people that have been calling for a zone for some time. Those people also have been critical of CMP in other areas and so as soon as the talk of zone comes up from anyone there is the immediate backlash from the "defenders" of CMP. I think if you go back in this thread you will see that I predicted that exact thing. If you and others think that we have the necessary versatility on the defensive end to maximize our potential then we will just need to agree to disagree.

I appreciate your thoughts on the subject and I don't take it as directed to me particularly. I just think if we could step away from the other issues that get thrown around about fire CMP and the other junk and just look at this one thing as a stand-alone subject it might be easier to discuss. That's hard because the emotions run high on both sides and any criticism gets treated with the same medicine.

I am surprised that you haven't modified your zone into a "box & 1" in these discussions.

 

[Dryfly88]

I am surprised that you haven't modified your zone into a "box & 1" in these discussions.

???

 

[BuilderBob6]

Where did you ever get the idea that I was suggesting we just implement a zone without practicing it?? Of course you have to practice it. Did you think I thought CMP should just call a time-out and in the huddle say "ok guys we're going to try a zone now"? That is exactly the point, why are we not prepared to have more than one defense as an option? If you thought that, then I'm sorry you don't know enough about the game (see how that really doesn't help anything)?

The offense is not an afterthought. The group I suggested on defense are perfectly capable of producing on the offensive end as well.

The fallacy is somehow thinking that guys can't be taught or able to play a zone but they can play MTM. Where did you get that idea? Are our players somehow so unique that they are only able to play one kind of defense? Of course not, they are only taught to play one.

Lastly, once again, I'm not suggesting a change in defense would have guaranteed a win. What I'm saying is that when your current defense is getting exposed be prepared to try something else. Zone, sagging MTM (as mentioned earlier) something other than the current defense that is getting torched.

I don't understand why there are a group of you that whenever anything is questioned, even in a reasonable way you seem to take it as an affront to PU basketball or CMP. As if we should just accept everything and every decision without question. I generally like the direction the program is going and have no desire for a coaching change, but that certainly doesn't mean that every decision CMP makes is correct or should go without challenge. I'm still waiting for someone to say why being prepared with multiple defenses is a bad thing?

In this thread you have been talking about why we didn't zone in the Minny game. That's why I got the idea you were suggesting using it without practicing it. We haven't used it this year, Painter is not a zone guy so I'm fairly certain we have not practiced it all season. I don't know any other way to take that. You thought we should have zoned but we haven't practiced it.

This statement "The fallacy is somehow thinking that guys can't be taught or able to play a zone but they can play MTM." is not what I said. Of course they can be taught to play a zone, all of them probably played zone in H.S. (which is wrong imo). My point has consistently been the physical makeup of our players and our team is not conducive to playing an effective zone against a quicker, more athletic team.

For many years Painter had our perimeter defenders pressure the ball. We used to get beat by dribble penetration all the time, much more than we do now. He has changed that. I'm not sure what a sagging MTM is but what we play is a help oriented MTM. The farther away from the ball your man is, the farther away from him you are. As the ball gets closer, you get closer to your man.. The idea is that when dribble penetration happens, you are in position to rotate and help. Someone rotates to take your man and the rest of the team does the same. Coaches have their own ideas about the rotation principles but if the players understand them and practice them it can be a very effective defense.
Zone is very different. When penetration occurs, you are at a certain spot on the floor. If you leave too early to help, your area is wide open for a jumpshot, probably a three. If you're too late, the driver is already past you. Now we're asking one of our bigs to defend the man with the ball at the rim.....which can lead to fouls on the payers we can least afford to lose. Simply put, our MTM is much better suited to help with dribble penetration than a zone....with our players.

It's funny to me how sometimes events in a game we lost can take on a life of there own when repeated enough. I actually went to the ESPN play by play of the Minny game. It's not a perfect tool I grant you. But according to it, Mason had three layups in regulation. He had another in OT when Minny was pulling away. 3. One might think after reading all these posts about the game that he had 10. I don't recall all this talk about stopping dribble penetration when we played Villanova, although Hart got a few, probably be player of the year. Auburn was quicker. Louisville was quicker. But when we have a game like this people want to pull out games from the past and act like it's a trend. Hell I saw someone mention VCU the other day......Painter was 50 lbs lighter then.

Point is just because the defense didn't play well the other night doesn't mean we have to change what we do. Most of the time it's about execution, they did what they wanted to do better than we did. Not blaming the players, Painter made plenty of mistakes.

You want to know why we weren't prepared with multiple defenses? We are a MTM team, just like the vast majority of college teams. When we execute it well we usually win, when we don't and a player has a career night, we will probably lose.

 

[tjreese]

In this thread you have been talking about why we didn't zone in the Minny game. That's why I got the idea you were suggesting using it without practicing it. We haven't used it this year, Painter is not a zone guy so I'm fairly certain we have not practiced it all season. I don't know any other way to take that. You thought we should have zoned but we haven't practiced it.

This statement "The fallacy is somehow thinking that guys can't be taught or able to play a zone but they can play MTM." is not what I said. Of course they can be taught to play a zone, all of them probably played zone in H.S. (which is wrong imo). My point has consistently been the physical makeup of our players and our team is not conducive to playing an effective zone against a quicker, more athletic team.

For many years Painter had our perimeter defenders pressure the ball. We used to get beat by dribble penetration all the time, much more than we do now. He has changed that. I'm not sure what a sagging MTM is but what we play is a help oriented MTM. The farther away from the ball your man is, the farther away from him you are. As the ball gets closer, you get closer to your man.. The idea is that when dribble penetration happens, you are in position to rotate and help. Someone rotates to take your man and the rest of the team does the same. Coaches have their own ideas about the rotation principles but if the players understand them and practice them it can be a very effective defense.
Zone is very different. When penetration occurs, you are at a certain spot on the floor. If you leave too early to help, your area is wide open for a jumpshot, probably a three. If you're too late, the driver is already past you. Now we're asking one of our bigs to defend the man with the ball at the rim.....which can lead to fouls on the payers we can least afford to lose. Simply put, our MTM is much better suited to help with dribble penetration than a zone....with our players.

It's funny to me how sometimes events in a game we lost can take on a life of there own when repeated enough. I actually went to the ESPN play by play of the Minny game. It's not a perfect tool I grant you. But according to it, Mason had three layups in regulation. He had another in OT when Minny was pulling away. 3. One might think after reading all these posts about the game that he had 10. I don't recall all this talk about stopping dribble penetration when we played Villanova, although Hart got a few, probably be player of the year. Auburn was quicker. Louisville was quicker. But when we have a game like this people want to pull out games from the past and act like it's a trend. Hell I saw someone mention VCU the other day......Painter was 50 lbs lighter then.

Point is just because the defense didn't play well the other night doesn't mean we have to change what we do. Most of the time it's about execution, they did what they wanted to do better than we did. Not blaming the players, Painter made plenty of mistakes.

You want to know why we weren't prepared with multiple defenses? We are a MTM team, just like the vast majority of college teams. When we execute it well we usually win, when we don't and a player has a career night, we will probably lose.

bob, I appreciate you providing the precise numbers of things I stated and to continue to attempt to explain some of the whys. I hope you are more effective than I have been.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

we don't value the ball. that's why we lose. we have some of the most mind boggling turnovers. total slop.