Blaming the forwards

OrangeDW

Cmon. Kadary’s better
Joined
Aug 8, 2012
Messages
41,517
Like
106,103
The locals are calling him out, and he knows it. That's why he said "everyone says it's the guards" and went on to back the bus over the forwards only. He says none of us can really know what they're trying to do on defense because we're not at practice.

Apparently the 2-3 defense we've all been watching for at least the last 25 years is some form of linear algebra.

When a pass goes from one wide open Duke player at the top of the key to another wide open Duke player in the high corner, while Joe stands in one place with his arms down and stares at both of them, he's doing the right thing. Griffin and Q are failing on that play.
I would suggest that as far as our starting 5 goes, they’re basically all subpar defenders for one reason or another, based on what the zone requires them to do.

Kadary and Braswell are the only guys who play that are better than average on that end.
 

Cuse826

Walk On
Joined
Feb 23, 2021
Messages
13
Like
15
Last night was an awful display of the zone. I thought coach had the forwards coming up top to early and it set the tone. They obviously shot lights out, but they were mostly wide open looks. You give competent shooters time to setup and shoot they are going to make a high percentage.

After three passes and Marek is already in the corner the defense is screwed. There were also times the opposite forward was playing high and let an easy basket go in the middle. Then when they were low and a cross court pass happened they could close out on the wing. It was a mess. It seemed like the frontcourt was running for their lives every possession.

I'm not going to claim to know .01 percent as much about the 2-3 as JB does, but you can't have a guard kind of playing the wing and the forward kind of playing a wing. The first few possessions of the game, literally the 3rd pass Marek has to fly out and guard the corner, that can't happen with 24 secs left on the shot clock. The guard needs to get there quicker and the forward needs to be smarter.

View attachment 196972

That's why they were down 16 just minutes into the game. It goes beyond the zone last night. It was just a lack of effort notably from Guerrier. The fastbreak which he was backpedaling down the court against no one only for the forward to dunk the ball triggering a timeout was worth the chewing out he got.
 

upperdeck

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
19,367
Like
16,697
Last night was an awful display of the zone. I thought coach had the forwards coming up top to early and it set the tone. They obviously shot lights out, but they were mostly wide open looks. You give competent shooters time to setup and shoot they are going to make a high percentage.

After three passes and Marek is already in the corner the defense is screwed. There were also times the opposite forward was playing high and let an easy basket go in the middle. Then when they were low and a cross court pass happened they could close out on the wing. It was a mess. It seemed like the frontcourt was running for their lives every possession.

I'm not going to claim to know .01 percent as much about the 2-3 as JB does, but you can't have a guard kind of playing the wing and the forward kind of playing a wing. The first few possessions of the game, literally the 3rd pass Marek has to fly out and guard the corner, that can't happen with 24 secs left on the shot clock. The guard needs to get there quicker and the forward needs to be smarter.

View attachment 196972
this picture alone makes you wonder what they are thinking.. if the FW is gonna flash up high then Marek needs to be on the outside shoulder, but he is in a pickle anyway.. that backside FW is in no place useful . Buddy either needs to drop down to help with the dump down or higher to make the pass back across harder. But I assume the Center was in the middle so thats Buddies first spot to control and things have moved a bit.

if Marek commits to the corner that the FW needs to be already moving to the center but he cant do that if he is so high as well.. No D works if you have 4 above the foul line and they stay there

Given where the are. Griffen should be down below the ACC then Girard makes the top pass go deeper and is ready for the long floater to #2.

But this happens alot with our FW who are 10 ft out of position
 

upperdeck

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
19,367
Like
16,697
I would suggest that as far as our starting 5 goes, they’re basically all subpar defenders for one reason or another, based on what the zone requires them to do.

Kadary and Braswell are the only guys who play that are better than average on that end.
Braswell does some nice things on D.. Too bad he also is not a bit stronger to hold onto those rebounds.. Position ally he has been good since he got here.
 

tbonezone

Living Legend
Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Messages
13,706
Like
12,869
they slid the line back to 22+ft. that's a lot of territory for your interior defense to cover. and if they somehow can the middle is exposed and you got no rebounders. did the zone ever adjust to the changes ?
 

007

All American
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
4,416
Like
8,891
Agreed. I'd be curious to see how someone coaches any defense in groups. Ball, man, help, teammates positioning, etc; it seems it would be very difficult to split into groups and teach it without the whole.
Actually, it is easy to do and very common. Lots of drill work is done from parts to whole for both offense and defense.
 

OrangeinDC

Mission: Always destroy Bayside44 in Hoops!
Joined
Aug 31, 2011
Messages
132
Like
353
Agreed. I'd be curious to see how someone coaches any defense in groups. Ball, man, help, teammates positioning, etc; it seems it would be very difficult to split into groups and teach it without the whole.
The "bump" doesn't seem to happen consistently between the guards and forwards on D. The forwards seem really high, and several times you'll see the guard and forward next to each other way too long, guarding the same guy vice the forward acknowledging the bump and rotating back down. Zone works best when all five players are synched on their rotations and responsibilities, you can literally see it moving as a unit when you watch.
 

CuseFaninVT

Living Legend
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
32,709
Like
53,526
Last night was an awful display of the zone. I thought coach had the forwards coming up top to early and it set the tone. They obviously shot lights out, but they were mostly wide open looks. You give competent shooters time to setup and shoot they are going to make a high percentage.

After three passes and Marek is already in the corner the defense is screwed. There were also times the opposite forward was playing high and let an easy basket go in the middle. Then when they were low and a cross court pass happened they could close out on the wing. It was a mess. It seemed like the frontcourt was running for their lives every possession.

I'm not going to claim to know .01 percent as much about the 2-3 as JB does, but you can't have a guard kind of playing the wing and the forward kind of playing a wing. The first few possessions of the game, literally the 3rd pass Marek has to fly out and guard the corner, that can't happen with 24 secs left on the shot clock. The guard needs to get there quicker and the forward needs to be smarter.

View attachment 196972
No one can convince me we don't play a 4-1 zone. 2-3 my arse.
 

CuseFaninVT

Living Legend
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
32,709
Like
53,526
I would suggest that as far as our starting 5 goes, they’re basically all subpar defenders for one reason or another, based on what the zone requires them to do.

Kadary and Braswell are the only guys who play that are better than average on that end.
I thought Woody did well when we got to see him early in the season.

Remember when JB said something along the lines of Woody not playing well in practice but showing out in games? That was weird, huh?
 

CuseFaninVT

Living Legend
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
32,709
Like
53,526
That's why they were down 16 just minutes into the game. It goes beyond the zone last night. It was just a lack of effort notably from Guerrier. The fastbreak which he was backpedaling down the court against no one only for the forward to dunk the ball triggering a timeout was worth the chewing out he got.
He totally fell asleep on that one. Was more concerned about getting to his assigned position and didn't know where the ball was, or the fact that the forward was coming down on the other side and he just left him free and clear to get that dunk. So weird.
 

Fly Rodder

2019-20 Iggy Co-Winner Reg Season Rcd
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
7,271
Like
17,905
No one can convince me we don't play a 4-1 zone. 2-3 my arse.
JB spends so much time tweaking the zone that he gets his head up his own arse. I think he's too clever by half and has now started entering a new plane of consciousness playing 11-dimensional chess. Unfortunately, he's expecting players to do things that they're just not capable of doing.

There's a reason why out of ~350 division one programs only a handful play mostly or all zone.
 

OrangeDW

Cmon. Kadary’s better
Joined
Aug 8, 2012
Messages
41,517
Like
106,103
JB spends so much time tweaking the zone that he gets his head up his own arse. I think he's too clever by half and has now started entering a new plane of consciousness playing 11-dimensional chess. Unfortunately, he's expecting players to do things that they're just not capable of doing.
I think maybe the point of playing zone needs to be reevaluated. We don’t have a big, athletic center that can block shots, clog the paint, AND cover the corner.(does one exist?)

We’re not long. We don’t take away the inside. We don’t make teams take 3’s a little deeper than they’re comfortable. We don’t really trap or play the passing lanes.

What exactly are we accomplishing?
 

kirbivore

2019 Cali Award (Passing Yards)
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
10,060
Like
9,401
I liked it better when the forwards guarded the corners, the center guarded the basket and the guards kept them out of the paint. But maybe the rise in three point shooting makes that impossible - we've got extend too far out, can't keep them out of the paint and the center has to come out, forcing the forwards to fill the gap. It's like a fire drill.

Like the poster whose name I forget stated after the 2018 tournament loss to Baylor, Steph Curry killed the zone.
 

CuseFaninVT

Living Legend
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
32,709
Like
53,526
I think maybe the point of playing zone needs to be reevaluated. We don’t have a big, athletic center that can block shots, clog the paint, AND cover the corner.(does one exist?)

We’re not long. We don’t take away the inside. We don’t make teams take 3’s a little deeper than they’re comfortable. We don’t really trap or play the passing lanes.

What exactly are we accomplishing?
It totally does need reevaluation. This is an era where every kid practices 3s more than any other shot. And from deeper and deeper every year. They use the zone in the pros, so you know it has a time and place for usage, but never 100% of the time. Inability to adapt is killing our defense.
 

shandeezy7

Hall of Fame
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
9,385
Like
19,764
Look at this shot chart and tell me how the guards weren’t a problem. I count 9 made threes from the top of the key or the near wings.

1614109195138.jpeg
 

007

All American
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
4,416
Like
8,891
No one can convince me we don't play a 4-1 zone. 2-3 my arse.
I completely understand why you think so. But, for what it's worth, I can tell you with certainty that it is a 2-3 zone with JB's unique tweaks. The Fs have enormous coverage responsibilities including above the foul line and beyond the 3 point line on ball side, and to the opposite side low blocks on ball reversal. When the offense sets up in 1-3-1 looks or overloads, the forwards will initially match up with the wings and they will in fact be in a 4-1 alignment. It's the rotations out of that that are more traditional 2-3. But the base is definitely 2-3 as are the rotations other than the forwards matching up on the wings.

The screen shot in the OP includes at least 2 players definitely out of position, and therein lies the problem.
 

CuseFaninVT

Living Legend
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
32,709
Like
53,526
I completely understand why you think so. But, for what it's worth, I can tell you with certainty that it is a 2-3 zone with JB's unique tweaks. The Fs have enormous coverage responsibilities including above the foul line and beyond the 3 point line on ball side, and to the opposite side low blocks on ball reversal. When the offense sets up in 1-3-1 looks or overloads, the forwards will initially match up with the wings and they will in fact be in a 4-1 alignment. It's the rotations out of that that are more traditional 2-3. But the base is definitely 2-3 as are the rotations other than the forwards matching up on the wings.

The screen shot in the OP includes at least 2 players definitely out of position, and therein lies the problem.
I know what you are saying, but we see the same out of position line up on every play. It's why the corners have to be guarded by the center, and why teams get dunks on us so easily. You could argue 2-2-1, but there is no way our defense is a 2-3, nor has it been for years.
 

City of Cuse

2nd String
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
766
Like
1,506
Actually, it is easy to do and very common. Lots of drill work is done from parts to whole for both offense and defense.
In my life playing and coaching I've never learned a new offense or defense without the whole. Guess I didn't play at a high enough level.

Much like school, there were building blocks that could be taught more individually or position based before some things were expounded on, but a zone seems very difficult to learn without the whole.
 

007

All American
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
4,416
Like
8,891
In my life playing and coaching I've never learned a new offense or defense without the whole. Guess I didn't play at a high enough level.

Much like school, there were building blocks that could be taught more individually or position based before some things were expounded on, but a zone seems very difficult to learn without the whole.
For clarification, it is never taught/coached without the whole. For example, teaching the zone rotations we coached the whole and then used 3-3 drills to reinforce the strong side guard playing the ball, weakside guard sliding into high post area, and ball side forward closing out to wing, and so on. Kind of similar to using the 3 on 2 to 2 on 1 full court drill to reinforce your fastbreak offense. If you played or coached, I would be very surprised if this was never used.
 

City of Cuse

2nd String
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
766
Like
1,506
For clarification, it is never taught/coached without the whole. For example, teaching the zone rotations we coached the whole and then used 3-3 drills to reinforce the strong side guard playing the ball, weakside guard sliding into high post area, and ball side forward closing out to wing, and so on. Kind of similar to using the 3 on 2 to 2 on 1 full court drill to reinforce your fastbreak offense. If you played or coached, I would be very surprised if this was never used.
That makes sense, think our wires were crossed.
 

Online statistics

Members online
232
Guests online
991
Total visitors
1,223

Top Bottom