menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Basketball Topic
Topic: ZONE
Page: 1 of 1
mail
person
MonroeClassmate
3/22/2017 8:15 PM
Do none of you posters read the WSJ? How about SI? You guys miss some timely information on sports if you do not.

Well I doubt many read it as one of you would have certainly posted the WSJ article regarding the merits of playing a zone defense.

Kansas playing Kentucky and Bill Self says we would have lost the game had we not switched to a zone. He "gritted his teeth and did something that went against one of his foundational coaching principles: He played a zone defense.

Read the pluses to the zone yourSELF's pun intended.

But the question is if Saul had played a zone at times against Kent, would it have changed the number of fouls on Carter--the article points to reduction in fouls as a benefit.

Let the debate begin. Oh, and do yourselves a favor and start reading the WSJ and SI and get in the know--one of you rich guys buy it for Saul.
Last Edited: 3/22/2017 8:28:56 PM by MonroeClassmate
mail
mcbin
3/22/2017 9:09 PM
All I know is Saul has said on numerous occasions basically that you should get a different coach if you want to see zone D. I'm guessing WSJ isn't gonna sway him but we'll see :)
mail
RSBobcat
3/22/2017 9:39 PM
I have posted Multiple times that at least some occasional - where Obviously could be a benefit - Zone option could have really helped this year (especially when the man "help" was lacking).

No Zone Ever? Well - basically eliminates opp team having to spend time prepping pre game and making adjustments in game to figure out how to ways skin a cat.....
mail
person
allen
3/22/2017 10:57 PM
A zone would have been great against Buffalo, who at the time had the better athletes, they were able to get into the paint at will. Sometimes you have to adapt, maybe Saul will adapt or recruit more athletes.
mail
GraffZ06
3/23/2017 8:18 AM
allen wrote:expand_more
Saul will adapt or recruit more athletes.
This. I have no problem with Saul philosophically wanting to be a m2m team. I have no problem with Saul philosophically wanting to recruit smart/fundamentally sound players/shooters who stretch the floor but might be less athletic. However - those 2 philosophies can't co-exist with each other.

If your guys aren't athletic enough to guard without fouling you HAVE to consider playing some zone. If you absolutely 100% will never play zone you HAVE to make sure you're recruiting athletes who can guard.

If this doesn't change - it will be the downfall of #SaulBall.
mail
person
Jeff McKinney
3/23/2017 9:26 AM
The numbers show that we played pretty good D this season. Look at where we ranked in opponents FG%, defensive efficiency, etc. Still a work in progress in containing dribble drives by the Beefs, etc, but we are on the right track.

In Cleveland and late in season, we defended these "athletic" teams as well as the athletic teams defended each other.

I anticipate further improvements in D next season.

Phillips' formula has worked elsewhere for a long time.
mail
person
GoCats105
3/23/2017 9:29 AM
GraffZ06 wrote:expand_more
Saul will adapt or recruit more athletes.
This. I have no problem with Saul philosophically wanting to be a m2m team. I have no problem with Saul philosophically wanting to recruit smart/fundamentally sound players/shooters who stretch the floor but might be less athletic. However - those 2 philosophies can't co-exist with each other.

If your guys aren't athletic enough to guard without fouling you HAVE to consider playing some zone. If you absolutely 100% will never play zone you HAVE to make sure you're recruiting athletes who can guard.

If this doesn't change - it will be the downfall of #SaulBall.
You can play team defense and stop athletic players. As much as offensive flow is part of the game, so is defensive flow. Everyone has to be on the same page.
mail
bigtillyoopsupsideurhead
3/23/2017 9:44 AM
GraffZ06 wrote:expand_more
If your guys aren't athletic enough to guard without fouling you HAVE to consider playing some zone. If you absolutely 100% will never play zone you HAVE to make sure you're recruiting athletes who can guard.

If this doesn't change - it will be the downfall of #SaulBall.
This isn't really how it works in college. Teams that play zone (Syracuse, EMU, sometimes Louisville) do so because they already have the athletes and the lengths for the zone to be effective.

You have to be big and fast enough to get in passing lanes and rebound out of your area. I worry that if we randomly switched to zone we would get killed on the offensive glass.

We had the best defensive in the MACxthis year and were the only team in the conference in the top 100 nationally. I am just not sure why we think we need to experiment with different defenses.
mail
person
Deciduous Forest Cat
3/23/2017 9:56 AM
bigtillyoopsupsideurhead wrote:expand_more
If your guys aren't athletic enough to guard without fouling you HAVE to consider playing some zone. If you absolutely 100% will never play zone you HAVE to make sure you're recruiting athletes who can guard.

If this doesn't change - it will be the downfall of #SaulBall.


I worry that if we randomly switched to zone we would get killed on the offensive glass.
More than we already did?
mail
person
bobcat695
3/23/2017 10:21 AM
I like zone defense vs. teams that do not shoot the ball well. The same can be said for pack line man defense to take away the dribble drive. The purist viewpoint is to play man exclusively, but zone is effective vs. undisciplined teams that do not shoot well or move without the ball. Sometimes coaches recruit players specifically for their system and don't have the personnel to make a change. WVU is perfect example of this. I'd play zone vs. them every minute because they're so bad in the half court offense.
mail
bigtillyoopsupsideurhead
3/23/2017 11:14 AM
Deciduous Forest Cat wrote:expand_more
If your guys aren't athletic enough to guard without fouling you HAVE to consider playing some zone. If you absolutely 100% will never play zone you HAVE to make sure you're recruiting athletes who can guard.

If this doesn't change - it will be the downfall of #SaulBall.


I worry that if we randomly switched to zone we would get killed on the offensive glass.
More than we already did?

We were 106th in the country in offensive rebound % against, that was 7th in the MAC. Not good, but not nearly as disastrous as people are making it out to be.

Either way the answer is yes, if we switch to zone I would expect that number to get worse, not better.

Syracuse was 335th in the nation in offensive rebound % against, for a team as big and athletic as they are, that is really bad. EMU was 338th and last in the MAC in the same category. Rebounding out of a zone is not easy.
mail
greencat
3/23/2017 11:17 AM
Changing defenses takes the other team out of their rhythm, out of their element, out of their comfort zone... whatever you want to call it.

To be that much against playing some zone even now and then is ridiculous. Maybe his statement is correct. Maybe they did hire the wrong guy.

But his story about lava cakes was funny.
mail
person
Jeff McKinney
3/23/2017 11:43 AM
Well I guess then Wisconsin maybe hired the wrong guy in Bo Ryan.

Read a quote that "zone" was almost a four letter word in Bo Ryans vocabulary.

Coach Phillips is a disciple of Bo Ryan and so is his staff. That's the coaching tree we have. It has a good track record of wins and losses.
mail
person
giacomo
3/23/2017 11:48 AM
I see Saul's point. It's like saying you'll only drink beer from a bottle or tap, never a can. I think it's one more strategy you can use if you need it.
mail
OU_Country
3/23/2017 12:12 PM
MonroeClassmate wrote:expand_more
Read the pluses to the zone yourSELF's pun intended.
Unless you're trying to be funny, and my sarcasm detection system is failing again: Isn't that "yourselves"?

And who reads the WSJ regularly for sports reading?
mail
OU_Country
3/23/2017 12:20 PM
mcbin wrote:expand_more
All I know is Saul has said on numerous occasions basically that you should get a different coach if you want to see zone D. I'm guessing WSJ isn't gonna sway him but we'll see :)
Yup. It's been discussed time and again. We aren't likely to ever see a Saul zone. It's really wasting time to keep asking for it. It ain't happenin'.


That said, I see a lot of value in being able to go to a different look on occasion to mix it up. I don't think it has to be a zone. It could just as easily be a half court trap, or 3/4 court press. Something that can change the look when a change is needed - at the end of a game for example.
mail
person
MonroeClassmate
3/23/2017 7:58 PM
OU_Country wrote:expand_more
Read the pluses to the zone yourSELF's pun intended.
Unless you're trying to be funny, and my sarcasm detection system is failing again: Isn't that "yourselves"?

And who reads the WSJ regularly for sports reading?
You may notice that the featured coach in the article had a last name of SELF so therefore the use of the name instead of selves.

IMO, Wisconsin Bo is not in the same class of the Kansas pedigree and yet the Kansas coach wanted to win a game against KY and he went against his traditional thinking. That only makes sense to me. Why would you stick to some orthodoxy and potentially be less effective in a certain circumstance?

Again, I ask, would Carter have spent more time on the floor in Cleveland against Kent if he would have been in a zone?

Pick up the Wednesday WSJ and see if the sports article has value to you--I've read quite a few articles that I have not seen elsewhere and written by talented writers.
mail
person
allen
3/23/2017 8:24 PM
Nobody knows it all, FS use to never pass, now we pass. You have to be flexible, Saul has a preference, he has to win with his preference or market forces will sweep him away. Larry Hunter was once a beloved coach. If I were Saul, I would do whatever gives us the best chance to win.
mail
GraffZ06
3/23/2017 10:22 PM
Just watched Gonzaga use a little zone to knock off WVU.

If I recall correctly, Coach K had Duke play a little zone (and he's a M2M guy too) in order to save guys from foul trouble en route to knocking one Bo Ryan and Wisconsin out in the national champ a couple years ago.

Nobody says it has to be your staple, or that you even like running it - just that you're open-minded/flexible enough to understand your team might benefit from it in certain situations.
mail
GraffZ06
3/23/2017 10:26 PM
GoCats105 wrote:expand_more
You can play team defense and stop athletic players. As much as offensive flow is part of the game, so is defensive flow. Everyone has to be on the same page.
That's true. Of course it requires a team with a really high BBIQ - who are used to playing with each other to the point they can anticipate rotations well. Generally needs a very upper class laden team to pull off at the NCAA level - or a team/coach that really stresses team D as a staple of their identity. Neither of those have applied to any versions of our team under Saul so far.
mail
GraffZ06
3/23/2017 10:34 PM
bigtillyoopsupsideurhead wrote:expand_more
If your guys aren't athletic enough to guard without fouling you HAVE to consider playing some zone. If you absolutely 100% will never play zone you HAVE to make sure you're recruiting athletes who can guard.

If this doesn't change - it will be the downfall of #SaulBall.
This isn't really how it works in college. Teams that play zone (Syracuse, EMU, sometimes Louisville) do so because they already have the athletes and the lengths for the zone to be effective. [/QUOTE]Yes and no. Depends on what type of zone you deploy. If you're playing a trapping/attacking zone meant to speed up the O and create turnovers, then I agree with the above. If you're playing a more passive zone that is read and react and meant to clog the paint - then not so much. Heck of a lot easier for an nonathletic guy to guard a 6 foot area for a second or so at a time than to check a more athletic guy all over the floor for an entire possession. Also a heck of a lot easier to avoid fouls or hide somebody with foul trouble but keep them on the floor.

[QUOTE=bigtillyoopsupsideurhead]
You have to be big and fast enough to get in passing lanes and rebound out of your area. I worry that if we randomly switched to zone we would get killed on the offensive glass.
Agree on the rebounding part. Definitely harder to check out from a zone D. Also zone tends to lead to more jump shots - which lead to longer loose ball type rebounds. It's not the end-all-be-all of defenses. It has it's pluses and minuses. That's why ideally you'd only want to deploy it for stretches of time or against certain match ups - and only as warranted.

I wouldn't recommend doing ANYTHING "randomly". It better be something we've practiced/studied and perfected. So yes - Saul should actually game plan and practice some zone from time to time so if we ever needed it, it wouldn't be something "random".
mail
OU_Country
3/24/2017 11:34 AM
MonroeClassmate wrote:expand_more
Read the pluses to the zone yourSELF's pun intended.
Unless you're trying to be funny, and my sarcasm detection system is failing again: Isn't that "yourselves"?

And who reads the WSJ regularly for sports reading?
You may notice that the featured coach in the article had a last name of SELF so therefore the use of the name instead of selves.

IMO, Wisconsin Bo is not in the same class of the Kansas pedigree and yet the Kansas coach wanted to win a game against KY and he went against his traditional thinking. That only makes sense to me. Why would you stick to some orthodoxy and potentially be less effective in a certain circumstance?

Again, I ask, would Carter have spent more time on the floor in Cleveland against Kent if he would have been in a zone?

Pick up the Wednesday WSJ and see if the sports article has value to you--I've read quite a few articles that I have not seen elsewhere and written by talented writers.
See, failed sarcasm detector. eesh.

I'll give the WSJ a shot this afternoon.
Showing Messages: 1 - 22 of 22
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)