Zone defense

[boilerart]

I'm ready to get killed on this but I've got my feet planted. I'm quite old ( went thru 3 coaches in basketball camp one was not painter.
I loved Gene and his defense. I thought only pussys like Syacuse played zone. But I've come to a point where I would like to see Purdue use some zone. If they tried it and failed so be it. Last night PSU was getting in the lane easy. A 3 2 zone would have helped IMO.
One thing a zone does is it hides a defensive liability player. For example Grady gets drove on all the time. I know help man helps out but from different players. In a zone you know what area to guard. I'm probably not saying this correctly. ( got kicked out of cary and went home and life happened) so no college degree. I'll get to the benefits of a zone. As mentioned above is one, to get some rest is two to help with individual fouls is three.
Man to man d is exhausting to me (I'm tall ) Recruits see purdue play man exclusively and think no way.
Purdue is so easy to game plan now. I'm not saying play zone all the time but throw in a zone to mix it up. To me it's like purdue is leaving options in the bag.

 

[BOILERBOY]

Well I would say this
1)It may be exhausting to you, but not D1 players any more so than chasing perimeter shooters in a zone D
2) You can foul just as much in zone as in Man to man
3) Man to man seem more likely to wear an offense down as well
4) If you dont practice it --its never gonna work. So devote 50% in practice..makes you only half as good at either D
5) Some teams use both and aren't wildly successful, for example Iowa, Minny
Just my opinion,,,

 

[BNIBoiler]

You just opened up a can of worms. Zone is a 4 letter word on this site.

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

Buckle Up, Ladies and Gentlemen.....we're expecting some slight "turbulence" ahead with this thread.

It's a balmy 21 degrees today in West Lafayette....forecast is improving for Sunday's visit from the Golden Gophers.....and as always, thank you for flying with Old Gold & Black.

 

[JohnnyDoeBoiler]

I'm ready to get killed on this but I've got my feet planted. I'm quite old ( went thru 3 coaches in basketball camp one was not painter.
I loved Gene and his defense. I thought only pussys like Syacuse played zone. But I've come to a point where I would like to see Purdue use some zone. If they tried it and failed so be it. Last night PSU was getting in the lane easy. A 3 2 zone would have helped IMO.
One thing a zone does is it hides a defensive liability player. For example Grady gets drove on all the time. I know help man helps out but from different players. In a zone you know what area to guard. I'm probably not saying this correctly. ( got kicked out of cary and went home and life happened) so no college degree. I'll get to the benefits of a zone. As mentioned above is one, to get some rest is two to help with individual fouls is three.
Man to man d is exhausting to me (I'm tall ) Recruits see purdue play man exclusively and think no way.
Purdue is so easy to game plan now. I'm not saying play zone all the time but throw in a zone to mix it up. To me it's like purdue is leaving options in the bag.

Someone with the stats can back me up on this but there was a recent study that clearly showed Man to Man defensive principles are better than zone at the college level.

You are talking about some singular plays within a game (Grady being driven on to the baseline side) that should be taken care of if the help side defense is in proper position. In that instance (late in the game against PSU), there was nobody on the lower side to help seal off the baseline due to the action PSU ran prior to that. In that instance, you have to have the defender who is most opposite the ball standing with two feet in the lane and preferably about 2 steps away from the rim. This allows him to slide to help and to set a short corner trap that prevents the ball from being easily rotated and finding an easy jumper/driving lane. In that instance because of the action, you would want Grady to cut off the baseline himself BUT because that is not the normal principal for Purdue's man to man defense, he was unable to and gave up a bucket.

In the video I have attached, go to the 2:08 mark. Here you see Haarms in great helpside man to man position. He is between his man and the ball while also being outside of the charge arc. He is not too high so he can't provide help low but not too low so that he gets caught out of position. When Stevens drives, Grady feeds him towards the baseline while Haarms rotates over. Stevens seeing Haarms' help and not having the baseline turns to rotate the ball back out. When Bolton gets the ball and then continues back towards where Stevens had just run in to a double, he is doing exactly what he shouldn't do. He simply made a circus shot in that instance. The only piece of poor defense at all in that sequence might have been Nojel being a step slow in putting himself in position to deny Bolton the ball. In fact, looking at the other two players (Carsen and Cline), they are also in the exact position they need to be. You see Carsen bumping and maintaining contact with the low post while Haarms is in help position. You also see Cline dropping down to help on the center which probably denies the center the ability to get an easy pass.

Key point is: Purdue's man to man defense has grown a ton and they are in position most of the time...especially with Nojel, Grady, and Haarms on defense. Some times it is good or lucky offense that wins out.

 

[Ignacious McNutt]

I'm ready to get killed on this but I've got my feet planted. I'm quite old ( went thru 3 coaches in basketball camp one was not painter.
I loved Gene and his defense. I thought only pussys like Syacuse played zone. But I've come to a point where I would like to see Purdue use some zone. If they tried it and failed so be it. Last night PSU was getting in the lane easy. A 3 2 zone would have helped IMO.
One thing a zone does is it hides a defensive liability player. For example Grady gets drove on all the time. I know help man helps out but from different players. In a zone you know what area to guard. I'm probably not saying this correctly. ( got kicked out of cary and went home and life happened) so no college degree. I'll get to the benefits of a zone. As mentioned above is one, to get some rest is two to help with individual fouls is three.
Man to man d is exhausting to me (I'm tall ) Recruits see purdue play man exclusively and think no way.
Purdue is so easy to game plan now. I'm not saying play zone all the time but throw in a zone to mix it up. To me it's like purdue is leaving options in the bag.

This is a new and exciting topic. It has in no way shape or form been beaten in to the ground many times already.

 

[Ignacious McNutt]

Someone with the stats can back me up on this but there was a recent study that clearly showed Man to Man defensive principles are better than zone at the college level.

You are talking about some singular plays within a game (Grady being driven on to the baseline side) that should be taken care of if the help side defense is in proper position. In that instance (late in the game against PSU), there was nobody on the lower side to help seal off the baseline due to the action PSU ran prior to that. In that instance, you have to have the defender who is most opposite the ball standing with two feet in the lane and preferably about 2 steps away from the rim. This allows him to slide to help and to set a short corner trap that prevents the ball from being easily rotated and finding an easy jumper/driving lane. In that instance because of the action, you would want Grady to cut off the baseline himself BUT because that is not the normal principal for Purdue's man to man defense, he was unable to and gave up a bucket.

In the video I have attached, go to the 2:08 mark. Here you see Haarms in great helpside man to man position. He is between his man and the ball while also being outside of the charge arc. He is not too high so he can't provide help low but not too low so that he gets caught out of position. When Stevens drives, Grady feeds him towards the baseline while Haarms rotates over. Stevens seeing Haarms' help and not having the baseline turns to rotate the ball back out. When Bolton gets the ball and then continues back towards where Stevens had just run in to a double, he is doing exactly what he shouldn't do. He simply made a circus shot in that instance. The only piece of poor defense at all in that sequence might have been Nojel being a step slow in putting himself in position to deny Bolton the ball. In fact, looking at the other two players (Carsen and Cline), they are also in the exact position they need to be. You see Carsen bumping and maintaining contact with the low post while Haarms is in help position. You also see Cline dropping down to help on the center which probably denies the center the ability to get an easy pass.

Key point is: Purdue's man to man defense has grown a ton and they are in position most of the time...especially with Nojel, Grady, and Haarms on defense. Some times it is good or lucky offense that wins out.

View embedded media

So much of this. It has been show time and time again that for us there is blatant evidence just no value to running a zone, at all. Just because some think it's something shiny to run, doesn't mean it's viable or needed.

 

[BoilerMaker P]

I will simply say this...I'm not sure that a zone is the cure for our perimeter defense woes.

 

[TwinDegrees2]

I'm ready to get killed on this but I've got my feet planted. I'm quite old ( went thru 3 coaches in basketball camp one was not painter.
I loved Gene and his defense. I thought only pussys like Syacuse played zone. But I've come to a point where I would like to see Purdue use some zone. If they tried it and failed so be it. Last night PSU was getting in the lane easy. A 3 2 zone would have helped IMO.
One thing a zone does is it hides a defensive liability player. For example Grady gets drove on all the time. I know help man helps out but from different players. In a zone you know what area to guard. I'm probably not saying this correctly. ( got kicked out of cary and went home and life happened) so no college degree. I'll get to the benefits of a zone. As mentioned above is one, to get some rest is two to help with individual fouls is three.
Man to man d is exhausting to me (I'm tall ) Recruits see purdue play man exclusively and think no way.
Purdue is so easy to game plan now. I'm not saying play zone all the time but throw in a zone to mix it up. To me it's like purdue is leaving options in the bag.

1st,not to be contraryt you're wrong about Grady. He's usually the one covering the other guy who got beat. Second, when a team is playing man as ferociously as this team currently is, you leave it alone. And if PU is so easy to game plan, how is it that MSU, Maryland, IU, and others haven't gotten the playbook yet.

 

[guppy likes purdue]

Someone with the stats can back me up on this but there was a recent study that clearly showed Man to Man defensive principles are better than zone at the college level.

You are talking about some singular plays within a game (Grady being driven on to the baseline side) that should be taken care of if the help side defense is in proper position. In that instance (late in the game against PSU), there was nobody on the lower side to help seal off the baseline due to the action PSU ran prior to that. In that instance, you have to have the defender who is most opposite the ball standing with two feet in the lane and preferably about 2 steps away from the rim. This allows him to slide to help and to set a short corner trap that prevents the ball from being easily rotated and finding an easy jumper/driving lane. In that instance because of the action, you would want Grady to cut off the baseline himself BUT because that is not the normal principal for Purdue's man to man defense, he was unable to and gave up a bucket.

In the video I have attached, go to the 2:08 mark. Here you see Haarms in great helpside man to man position. He is between his man and the ball while also being outside of the charge arc. He is not too high so he can't provide help low but not too low so that he gets caught out of position. When Stevens drives, Grady feeds him towards the baseline while Haarms rotates over. Stevens seeing Haarms' help and not having the baseline turns to rotate the ball back out. When Bolton gets the ball and then continues back towards where Stevens had just run in to a double, he is doing exactly what he shouldn't do. He simply made a circus shot in that instance. The only piece of poor defense at all in that sequence might have been Nojel being a step slow in putting himself in position to deny Bolton the ball. In fact, looking at the other two players (Carsen and Cline), they are also in the exact position they need to be. You see Carsen bumping and maintaining contact with the low post while Haarms is in help position. You also see Cline dropping down to help on the center which probably denies the center the ability to get an easy pass.

Key point is: Purdue's man to man defense has grown a ton and they are in position most of the time...especially with Nojel, Grady, and Haarms on defense. Some times it is good or lucky offense that wins out.

View embedded media

I also read that study but I can't find it. The rise of Perimeter shooting has also made zone defenses less and less efficient was also the jist I got from it if I remember right so if anything Zone will only get less effective in the future.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

Purdue had been making great strides on defense prior to the PSU game, which I think was an aberration for several reasons. I think focusing on improving the man D makes the most sense.

 

[tjreese]

This is a new and exciting topic. It has in no way shape or form been beaten in to the ground many times already.

Well, I don't wish to dismiss this as I may learn a lot in reading the breaking down of zone versus man versus match-up zone. I'm always for more understanding...

 

[tjreese]

Key point is: Purdue's man to man defense has grown a ton and they are in position most of the time...especially with Nojel, Grady, and Haarms on defense. Some times it is good or lucky offense that wins out.

View embedded media

I think this is key. I don't think we take any player movement and/or lack of movement and decide the strategic advantage or disadvantage of employing a given defense. I think you start out with theory, understanding of advantages and disadvantages of different defensive approaches and work to make the best defense as good as possible with the one that should be the best. a player in position or not in position has no bearing as to the best defensive choice. In the spectrum between full court man-man press and denial and a passive half court zone exists many hybrids with theoretical advantages and disadvantages of each...not in the same magnitude or quantity.

In every game of basketball played...in every gym there are many different opinions of what they saw and fixes they know...just the way it is...

 

[Chi-Boiler]

It's just not going to happen. Call it stubbornness, call it consistency, call it whatever you like. Matt Painter is not going to use a zone defense.

 

[mryankee2397]

if you watch the players off ball on purdue defense, they arent always playing on their man. i dont mean double teams. there are times when at least one player is staying in a zone.

 

[Chi-Boiler]

That's just typical of man defense though. When the guy you're guarding is one pass away, you're tight on him. When he's 2 passes away, you can play off and help more and be in some passing lanes.

 

[boilerart]

Wow, some great in depth posts. I would just like to see it tried. Our switching man to man d sets up some mismatches and you also see off the ball scrambling to get back to your man. In a zone you play your area you know there is help waiting . I also believe zone can help a player in foul trouble. I know people could still try to attack that person but it's a little harder. Now with this team I wouldn't use a zone much. Don't think we are athletic enough.
I just believe it's another tool to use out of your chest

 

[BBG]

Wow, some great in depth posts. I would just like to see it tried. Our switching man to man d sets up some mismatches and you also see off the ball scrambling to get back to your man. In a zone you play your area you know there is help waiting . I also believe zone can help a player in foul trouble. I know people could still try to attack that person but it's a little harder. Now with this team I wouldn't use a zone much. Don't think we are athletic enough.
I just believe it's another tool to use out of your chest

Zone wouldn't of done much for us against PSU if I am being honest. They were shooting lights out from 3 and getting fouls called against us if we breathed on them too hard

I get the notion of wanting something different to mix it up, but as others alluded to the value in it isn't there or quickly diminishing.

But what do I know?

 

[BoilerinLouisville]

I always felt we should have played it when we had Haas; as he just couldn’t defend the pick and roll. There are times it would have helped; but this team won’t ever play zone. Our D hasn’t been terrible this year; although I’ve always been a fan of mixing it up on occasion against certain teams.
Although Pitnio was a scumbag; the guy could coach and his teams always played different defenses throughout the game just to keep the offense off balance; taking 3 different teams to the Final Four I’d say he knew what he was doing

 

[lbodel]

I always felt we should have played it when we had Haas; as he just couldn’t defend the pick and roll. There are times it would have helped; but this team won’t ever play zone. Our D hasn’t been terrible this year; although I’ve always been a fan of mixing it up on occasion against certain teams.
Although Pitnio was a scumbag; the guy could coach and his teams always played different defenses throughout the game just to keep the offense off balance; taking 3 different teams to the Final Four I’d say he knew what he was doing

He also had a roster full of NBA players for many of those teams.

It's easy to point at other defenses and say wow, look at that shiny and different thing. Well, there's a reason that very few teams play zone defense well.

Even as a mix up, it's usually done because your original defense isn't that good.

Purdue's defense causes teams a lot of trouble for the most part. It's a pain in the a$$ to be guarded man to man tightly all game. Players don't look forward to that.

As others pointed out, zone wouldn't have solved last night's challenges at all.

Sometimes the answer is to just get better at your bread and butter - if you don't do one thing good, doing 2 things ok isn't typically a better answer...

 

[3generboiler]

I agree that playing some zone could be advantageous versus some teams and some matchups. Several years ago (2012?), Northwestern had a nice half court zone trap (I believe it was a 1-3-1) that caused us and many others fits ... it was effective as I recall because the guy at the top of it was very long, athletic and made seeing over the defense difficult for smaller guards.

Michigan has also run similar in past ...

I would say that sitting back in a 2-3 zone in today’s game is suicide.

 

[tjreese]

That's just typical of man defense though. When the guy you're guarding is one pass away, you're tight on him. When he's 2 passes away, you can play off and help more and be in some passing lanes.

I always enjoy man and zone discussions, but relatively few times does anyone get into the specifics..why one may be better than another. If what works in high school could work in college. If the match-up is the right combination and the advantages of it versus man with switching adn so on. I should have kept my 2000 posts and 250,000 characters I typed previously just so we could try again to get into more of the specifics.

What is the preferred theory in defending? Is it only the position of the ball? Are player locations a concern? Is it a combination? Do you want the offense to match up with you how they want? Do you prefer to control the match-up of personnel? Is it only the dribble that penetration is of concern? Does penetration by the pass be a concern? Is there a wory that there is or is not pressure on a pass? What is the desire to be accomplished and what is the best defense to provide that? None of this is aimed at you or anyone in particular, but sometimes I'm not sure we have listed the pros and cons of our desires.

 

[Purdue85]

You just opened up a can of worms. Zone is a 4 letter word on this site.

uh.... isn't "zone" a 4 letter word on ANY site??

 

[tenwest]

I’ve never been a fan of the zone defense but I always wondered why it was illegal in the NBA for so many years.

 

[tjreese]

I’ve never been a fan of the zone defense but I always wondered why it was illegal in the NBA for so many years.

Not a fan of the pro game today, but perhaps the big bodies, length and athleticism of the NBA created a situation similar to what was seen in many smaller gyms years ago where a zone might cover the width of a gym and was very effective. Course when teams play man they are also playing some of the traits of zone. Lot of hybrids from the extremes of hard man and passive pure zone

 

[Boilerpointe81]

It's just not going to happen. Call it stubbornness, call it consistency, call it whatever you like. Matt Painter is not going to use a zone defense.

Call it being right

 

[Boilerpointe81]

I’ve never been a fan of the zone defense but I always wondered why it was illegal in the NBA for so many years.

I do not follow the pros closely but wasn’t it illegal back before the adoption of the 3 point shot? As someone posted earlier the farther out you can reliably shoot the more the zone gets spread and the more difficult it is to cover. The 3 point shot and the improvement in shooting has made it less effective.

 

[BoilerGal74]

Purdue had been making great strides on defense prior to the PSU game, which I think was an aberration for several reasons. I think focusing on improving the man D makes the most sense.

Not the least of those aberrations wearing stripes??

 

[BoilerBulldog]

if you watch the players off ball on purdue defense, they arent always playing on their man. i dont mean double teams. there are times when at least one player is staying in a zone.

Exactly. Our core defense has zone elements already. And not covering perimeter shooters won't be fixed by zone.

 

[lkfletcher14]

No matter which defense you use, a good defense requires that players constantly shift their weight so they can stay in front of their man. I find myself saying that about some of our players during games. And one thing you absolutely never do is get beat on the baseline. Never. The baseline is the sixth man on your team's defense.

 

[Chi-Boiler]

And the baseline is oftentimes the weak spot in a zone.

 

[Dakota Girl]

Exactly. Our core defense has zone elements already. And not covering perimeter shooters won't be fixed by zone.

My biggest issue with a zone for this team would be defensive rebounding. Not our strength already and it only gets harder when you run a zone. In general, I don’t like passive defenses. Most part time zone teams don’t do it as well as it needs to be done.

 

[tjreese]

No matter which defense you use, a good defense requires that players constantly shift their weight so they can stay in front of their man. I find myself saying that about some of our players during games. And one thing you absolutely never do is get beat on the baseline. Never. The baseline is the sixth man on your team's defense.

Years ago that was true...A BIG NO-NO. Today, many coaches use the baseline. They try to cut the court in half and force baseline to use teh baseline as a defender..and bring help. The thought is if you overplay and give up the baseline...you know where they are going and should be able to stop them...and of course there is help coming. STill, years ago I agree it was a no-no. We can also say prior to the 70s the skip pass was a no-no as well...as was dribbling against a zone. Athleticism has changed some things as has...rules in some things...

 

[mathboy]

We have had the zone thrown at us. You can see Clein and Edwards almost salivate. The zone against us usually lasts for 2 possessions at most, and then you never see it again by our opponent. I wonder why? (rhetorical question).