Steph Curry killed our zone

[samspann1]

I know. Nobody is. They are saying we recruit people who can't play offense because they are selected for zone attributes. We do this because our coach is not good enough to coach M2M or not interested in playing man to man.

When the facts are much more inclined to the conclusion that if JB is guilty of any weakness or laziness it is in his offensive coaching not in his personnel scouting and defensive strategy. But for whatever reason people latch on to the zone kills our chances to win meme instead.

When's the last time that we had a center with back to the basket moves? It feels like we've been playing most of the past few years 4-on-5 on offense.

How about having a PG who can break down his man and effectively set teammates up for good looks?

It does seem that we recruit a certain type of player - long and rangy - whether they're being recruited for their offensive skill sets or for other reasons, we'll never know. I do know that a guy like Girard is a welcome change, for me.

 

[samspann1]

i believe that too. john gillon was so good, such a good shooter but the opposition just killed us with 3s. i get as frustrated as anyone about this. gillon was the best point guard we've had in ages but not the best for this system

would you say that he wasn't a good fit for the zone?

 

[CuseCPT]

When's the last time that we had a center with back to the basket moves? It feels like we've been playing most of the past few years 4-on-5 on offense.

I would take Rick Jackson over Paschal every day of the week and twice on Tuesday. I know, I know, he was actually a PF, but that hasn't stopped him, Lydon or Dolezaj from logging significant minutes at center.

 

[44cuse]

hopefully hughes can be bailout small forward we can rely on in those spots next year

It’s just so bizarre. There are people who love the zone and they’re generally JB loyalists. There are people who hate the zone and they generally don’t actually look into the math. But both sides miss the point: it’s about the offense for SU...not the defense.

And I don’t love the zone, but I can see the equation.

44cuse

 

[Dawg]

If you are going to play zone it kinda of has to be an amoeba. You need athletic active long wings. Trap corners

 

[OrangeFoo]

It’s just so bizarre. There are people who love the zone and they’re generally JB loyalists. There are people who hate the zone and they generally don’t actually look into the math. But both sides miss the point: it’s about the offense for SU...not the defense.

And I don’t love the zone, but I can see the equation.

44cuse

I agree the offense is more of an issue than the defense. But our defense is also hurting the offense because we are recruiting players based on fit for the zone.

My main point is that the zone used to be a weapon that it alone made us elite. But now enough teams know how to get good shots against it that the zone no longer makes us elite. We need to either change the zone or focus on fixing the offense so we can outscore teams who have solved the zone or are going Steph Curry on us. Saying they made more shots than us is no longer an answer because the shots are wide open and, again thanks to Steph, teams have more people who are more likely to make those open shots which will make the zone less and less ineffective.

So on one side we have a defensive system which is degrading and is impacting our offense and then we have an offense which is stagnant and doesn’t create good looks. Something has to give.

 

[SWC75]

Baylor switched defenses against us and yet we shot the lights out, too. We win with Frank and we aren't even talking about this.

Anyway the historical SU three point percentage defense is in the Media Guide, (page 165), I took it back to the beginning of the collegiate three pointer, 1986-87. I'll include our percentages, (the first one) which were obtained vs. mostly man for man defenses. To save a bit of key pounding, that season will be "1987", the next year "1988" and so on.

1987 .403 vs. .357 = +46
1988 .378 vs. .371 = +7
1989 .370 vs. .353 = +17
1990 .331 vs. .320 = +11
1991 .353 vs. .320 = +33
1992 .335 vs. .314 = +21
1993 .324 vs. .354 = -30
1994 .306 vs. .328 = -22
1995 .340 vs. .342 = -2
1996 .360 vs. .299 = +61
1997 .365 vs. .296 = +69
1998 .329 vs. .322 = +7
1999 .311 vs. .341 = -30
2000 .354 vs. .326 = +28
2001 .335 vs. .322 = +13
2002 .333 vs. .314 = +19
2003 .344 vs. .303 = +41
2004 .328 vs. .294 = +34
2005 .313 vs. .326 = -13
2006 .339 vs. .342 = -3
2007 .365 vs. .327 = +38
2008 .341 vs. .353 = -12
2009 .345 vs. .295 = +50
2010 .391 vs. .302 = +89
2011 .354 vs. .315 = +39
2012 .349 vs. .315 = +34
2013 .334 vs. .284 = +50
2014 .331 vs. .345 = -14
2015 .301 vs. .315 = -14
2016 .360 vs. .307 = +53
2017 .381 vs. .342 = +39
2018 .318 vs. .318 = even
2019 .333 vs. .329 = +4

Our three point defense was really good from 2009-2013, when it averaged .302. But it was about the same last year as it was in 2011-2012 and the decline this year probably has a lot to do with the Frank Howard situation.

2010 was when we shifted to 100% zone. It doesn't seem to have hurt our three point defense.

For me the big takeaway is that our three point percentage, against mostly man for man defenses has been higher than what we've given up 24 times in 33 seasons. We haven't tended to be a "shoot the lights out" team and most of our opponents have tended to be more dependent on the three pointer than we were.

Our success seems to have varied based on the quality of talent we had on specific teams. Surprise, surprise.

 

[CorduroyG]

Stating facts = being a jerk. Look in the mirror my man. You are looking for any way to justify your hurt feelings over the loss. I'm not happy we lost either. But teams lose. It does happen. The zone was not very good last night. Period. We got beat.

jb is the best
he can do no wrong
its never his fault
the zone is flawless
no need to make adjustments
he should coach till hes 100
we lose 15 games every year, but we're fine

happy now?

 

[Millhouse]

It’s just so bizarre. There are people who love the zone and they’re generally JB loyalists. There are people who hate the zone and they generally don’t actually look into the math. But both sides miss the point: it’s about the offense for SU...not the defense.

And I don’t love the zone, but I can see the equation.

44cuse

To me it's about the tradeoff. Big guards who can do it all are hard to get. Small guards who can shoot aren't, big guards who can get in the way aren't. Boeheim gets around that sometimes with a skilled forward who can save his energy in the zone. Bazley or whatever his name is should've been that guy.

 

[FrancoPizza]

I’d agree Boeheim does have a plan B. Absolutely no idea why he didn’t go to it last night until 2 mins left.

The panic mode press is NOT a plan B; it’s a desperation tactic that usually means we’re on the verge of losing. A viable plan B is something a coach would try earlier in the game when it’s clear plan A is not working.

 

[Townie72]

In the pre-Tournament press conference, Boeheim was asked several questions about the Zone philosophy by a woman reporter.

One of these questions was whether SU recruits for the Zone.

Boeheim said the SU DID NOT. He said there recruiting strategy was to recruit the best players. He did allow that the Zone defense did allow SU to consider “thinner” players.

So we are left with a choice.

1. Boeheim is lying.

2. The people on here who insist we recruit players primarily because they fit into the Zone defense, don’t know what they are talking about.

There doesn’t seem to be a middle ground here. It’s binary. You can’t believe both.

I’ve made up my mind.

 

[samspann1]

I’ve made up my mind.

Gee, you don't say?

 

[OrangeDW]

ONE year ago we made the sweet 16 solely because nobody could score against us.

And in one year Steph Curry killed our zone.

Some of you guys try way too hard.

 

[samspann1]

ONE year ago we made the sweet 16 solely because nobody could score against us.

And in one year Steph Curry killed our zone.

Some of you guys try way too hard.

The offense has been a train wreck for quite a while, though.

 

[Townie72]

Gee, you don't say?

You opinion seems to be as consistent as mine is.

I’ve got the easier job because I’m defending a guy with actual credibility.

What are your credentials again?

 

[samspann1]

You opinion seems to be as consistent as mine is.

I’ve got the easier job because I’m defending a guy with actual credibility.

What are your credentials again?

Credibility with whom? Probably not the NCAA...

Just curious - have you ever disagreed with Boeheim's coaching decisions or his actions/decisions as the leader and figurehead of the SU Basketball program?

Also, what do you think that, in order, Boeheim's criteria are for recruiting Guards & Small Forwards? How about big men? Where would the following rank?

Shooting
Ball Handling
Passing
Rebounding

 

[Alsacs]

You opinion seems to be as consistent as mine is.

I’ve got the easier job because I’m defending a guy with actual credibility.

What are your credentials again?

So the old Joe Paterno defense.

Our HC next year will be the oldest man to ever coach in the D-1 basketball history. That isn’t a nothing burger. I and many fans will be interested in seeing if any changes happen within program.

JB is a legend and done a lot of good but he also been at the helm of two instances we have been penalized by the NCAA. The school has stuck by him both times. He has used political capital the ledger isn’t one sided. The severity of penalties being unjust isn’t an excuse for the fact we have been penalized two times and the school has stuck by him.

 

[OrangeDW]

The offense has been a train wreck for quite a while, though.

Agreed. Just find it weird how much the long term narrative on the zone changed in one year with some guys.

 

[CorduroyG]

ONE year ago we made the sweet 16 solely because nobody could score against us.

And in one year Steph Curry killed our zone.

Some of you guys try way too hard.

yea, sometimes teams cant hit a shot. michigan st couldnt hit a 3 that game if their life depended on it. same thing in louisville game this year. and in first duke game. but thats becoming rarer and rarer these days. basically our hope on defense every game is "lets hope that team or a player doesnt go off from 3". cause if they do we're basically powerless to stop it.

the zone is basically designed to give up 3s, jb is willing to play the percentages that theyll miss. and if they dont? heres what you get

jim why did you lose tonite?
"they made shots"

 

[Alsacs]

Agreed. Just find it weird how much the long term narrative on the zone changed in one year with some guys.

I don’t think the zone needs to be scrapped. I think many people just want to see the 100% zone scrapped.
If a team is lighting us up from 3 or killing us on the boards switch things up.
Baylor switched defenses on us and it killed us. That was the difference in the game.
Guys who want to be 100% man to man have adapted to using zone more like Coach K or Bill Self.
JB is in that class and yet he doesn’t mix it up at all and uses the excuse our guys can’t play man when that is so intellectually dishonest.

 

[OrangeDW]

yea, sometimes teams cant hit a shot. michigan st couldnt hit a 3 that game if their life depended on it. same thing in louisville game this year. and in first duke game. but thats becoming rarer and rarer these days. basically our hope on defense every game is "lets hope that team or a player doesnt go off from 3". cause if they do we're basically powerless to stop it.

the zone is basically designed to give up 3s, jb is willing to play the percentages that theyll miss. and if they dont? heres what you get

jim why did you lose tonite?
"they made shots"

I think we just played better defense last year than this year.

Hughes and Boeheim were offensive upgrades but defensive downgrades.

And whether it was the injury or not, Frank seemed to regress defensively.

 

[samspann1]

Agreed. Just find it weird how much the long term narrative on the zone changed in one year with some guys.

Personally, I don't mind the zone, but the refusal to switch defenses aside from a desperation tactic - even if only for a few minutes - is beyond maddening. And I do think that the zone devotion and its related recruiting tendencies does impact our offense in a negative way.

 

[Townie72]

Credibility with whom? Probably not the NCAA...

Just curious - have you ever disagreed with Boeheim's coaching decisions or his actions/decisions as the leader and figurehead of the SU Basketball program?

Also, what do you think that, in order, Boeheim's criteria are for recruiting Guards & Small Forwards? How about big men? Where would the following rank?

Shooting
Ball Handling
Passing
Rebounding

“We recruit good players” was the quote.

What you are doing is attempting to reverse-engineer the criteria by looking at the results. It’s a wild-assed guess on your part.

Appears to me, that “good” players might excel in any or all of the categories you listed and many more.

Do you have any evidence that SU uses a set of ranked, weighted criteria in assessing players.

Or is that just your idea or the way you would do things in the unlikely event that you were a college coach?

 

[CorduroyG]

I don’t think the zone needs to be scrapped. I think many people just want to see the 100% zone scrapped.
If a team is lighting us up from 3 or killing us on the boards switch things up.
Baylor switched defenses on us and it killed us. That was the difference in the game.
Guys who want to be 100% man to man have adapted to using zone more like Coach K or Bill Self.
JB is in that class and yet he doesn’t mix it up at all and uses the excuse our guys can’t play man when that is so intellectually dishonest.

ive resigned to the fact we will play 100% zone until jb retires. but he can adjust the zone. make defending the 3 the priority. extend it. be up in the guards faces. dont just sit back in it. thats what annoys me the most.

 

[OrangeDW]

I don’t think the zone needs to be scrapped. I think many people just want to see the 100% zone scrapped.
If a team is lighting us up from 3 or killing us on the boards switch things up.
Baylor switched defenses on us and it killed us. That was the difference in the game.
Guys who want to be 100% man to man have adapted to using zone more like Coach K or Bill Self.
JB is in that class and yet he doesn’t mix it up at all and uses the excuse our guys can’t play man when that is so intellectually dishonest.

I agree that it is time to revisit the 100% zone philosophy.