Does playing 100% zone defense help or hurt recruiting?

[Caboose]

That's the catch right there. We are not only impacted by kids who believe what other coaches tell them "zone hurts your NBA chances" to be true, but we are also telling guys to kick rocks because they are half an inch too short.

I don't understand how people argue that exclusively using the zone doesn't hurt recruiting or the basketball program in general. This is how I feel about it... it helps elevate you just above average programs and gives you a decent win total... hence JB's 1,000+ win total.

However, when it comes down to it, there are a number of recruits who completely remove Syracuse from their radar because of the zone. That catches up to you in March or when you're playing powerhouses like the Blue Bloods. I think that not having a chance at those blue chippers hurts us in the end. One title in 40+ years is successful? Sorry, 5 final fours are not titles.

I'm currently immersed in a heated discussion with some Cuse fans about this. These two guys think the zone is overall beneficial to the program. I don't, for the life of me, get it. Help me understand how having a smaller pool of players to choose from makes you a better D1 program.

 

[SoBeCuse]

I don't understand how people argue that exclusively using the zone doesn't hurt recruiting or the basketball program in general. This is how I feel about it... it helps elevate you just above average programs and gives you a decent win total... hence JB's 1,000+ win total.

However, when it comes down to it, there are a number of recruits who completely remove Syracuse from their radar because of the zone. That catches up to you in March or when you're playing powerhouses like the Blue Bloods. I think that not having a chance at those blue chippers hurts us in the end. One title in 40+ years is successful? Sorry, 5 final fours are not titles.

I'm currently immersed in a heated discussion with some Cuse fans about this. These two guys think the zone is overall beneficial to the program. I don't, for the life of me, get it. Help me understand how having a smaller pool of players to choose from makes you a better D1 program.

I'd be shocked if anyone (even the homers/orange-goggled rubes) would have the gaul to say it's beneficial to the program. It's unusual and a bizarre practice to do 100% zone but it doesn't seem to hurt players' stock heading to the NBA. If they struggle at the next level defensively then I think it is more on them and not on the program. They would be bad defenders in M2M as well. But, still, the all zone issue has its detractors, a stigma out there right or wrong, and something to recruit against. That's just not beneficial by default.

I will say that I think JB has sacrificed offense for defense. Maybe it's just not talented enough offensive players or scheme but, as discussed before, the 2013 team for example...the offense was just atrocious. I don't know if they just don't practice enough offense in terms of concepts/schematics but it has been an issue. I think Boeheim banks on opposing teams' potential unfamiliarty with the zone in a Tourney format to try to advance and less on offense. It's been disappointing at times since the defense was largely fine but scoring enough was a real struggle. Last year was an aberration in terms of the defense being so bad. This is a worthy debate.

 

[jr4750]

I'd be shocked if anyone (even the homers/orange-goggled rubes) would have the gaul to say it's beneficial to the program. It's unusual and a bizarre practice to do 100% zone but it doesn't seem to hurt players' stock heading to the NBA. If they struggle at the next level defensively then I think it is more on them and not on the program. They would be bad defenders in M2M as well. But, still, the all zone issue has its detractors, a stigma out there right or wrong, and something to recruit against. That's just not beneficial by default.

I will say that I think JB has sacrificed offense for defense. Maybe it's just not talented enough offensive players or scheme but, as discussed before, the 2013 team for example...the offense was just atrocious. I don't know if they just don't practice enough offense in terms of concepts/schematics but it has been a issue. I think Boeheim banks on opposing teams' potential unfamiliarty with the zone in a Tourney format to try to advance and less on offense. It's been disappointing at times since the defense was largely fine but scoring enough was a real struggle. Last year was an aberration in terms of the defense being so bad. This is a worthy debate.

I agree with the premise that it shouldn't be impossible for a player from SU to become a good M2M defender in the NBA, if given the chance. A few years playing zone at Cuse shouldn't stifle that skill completely. Add to that the fact that we play M2M in practice. Being a good defender involves effort and god given athletic prowess. After those two attributes some basic understanding of scheme and you're there. That said, no doubt the stigma of our zone has become an issue in recruiting. It's frustrating but reality. Not sure which Cuse player who has gone to the league and been labeled a bad defender would have been any better with more M2M experience in college? Certain guys were born to play a zone defense. Warwick, Grant, MCW. Maybe Flynn, but he got hurt before we could find out.

 

[Caboose]

I'd be shocked if anyone (even the homers/orange-goggled rubes) would have the gaul to say it's beneficial to the program. It's unusual and a bizarre practice to do 100% zone but it doesn't seem to hurt players' stock heading to the NBA. If they struggle at the next level defensively then I think it is more on them and not on the program. They would be bad defenders in M2M as well. But, still, the all zone issue has its detractors, a stigma out there right or wrong, and something to recruit against. That's just not beneficial by default.

I will say that I think JB has sacrificed offense for defense. Maybe it's just not talented enough offensive players or scheme but, as discussed before, the 2013 team for example...the offense was just atrocious. I don't know if they just don't practice enough offense in terms of concepts/schematics but it has been a issue. I think Boeheim banks on opposing teams' potential unfamiliarty with the zone in a Tourney format to try to advance and less on offense. It's been disappointing at times since the defense was largely fine but scoring enough was a real struggle. Last year was an aberration in terms of the defense being so bad. This is a worthy debate.

Really good points, particularly in your second paragraph. I also believe that JB has sacrificed offense for defense. To that point, the 2012 Final Four run, imho, was fueled not just by the stellar zone, but by MCW's realization that he needed to stop shooting and instead get to the hole. Once he did that and he became a true point guard, the team took off.

To your first comment about the orange homers not admitting that the zone doesn't hurt us in recruiting and overall... I'm dealing with two of them. I just can't wrap my head around it. How does closing out a chance at a segment of elite recruits help you? Both of them say the benefit of the zone in actual game-play outweighs the recruits we have no shot at. Sorry, I don't buy that.

I think that what I'm about to say is a sentiment shared by many, many Syracuse basketball fans... I love what JB has done for Syracuse and it's basketball program, and I would be saddened to no longer see him pace the sidelines in the Dome. However, I was optimistic and excited for the switchover to a new coach, be it Hopkins or whoever. The reason I was excited was because I knew that a new defensive philosophy would be ushered in, and possibly a wide open door to many more recruits who previously would have shut us out of consideration. I am still optimistic, but is a different optimism than that, the same one I've had for the last couple decades under the same old coach. The loss of the excitement from a fresh outlook and a fresh new coach is somewhat depressing to me.

 

[CousCuse]

The loss of the excitement from a fresh outlook and a fresh new coach is somewhat depressing to me.

I don't think you would be happy with a new coach either, at least for very long.

 

[Caboose]

I don't think you would be happy with a new coach either, at least for very long.

Why not? Please elaborate Sigmund.

 

[Jasoncuse]

I don't understand how people argue that exclusively using the zone doesn't hurt recruiting or the basketball program in general. This is how I feel about it... it helps elevate you just above average programs and gives you a decent win total... hence JB's 1,000+ win total.

However, when it comes down to it, there are a number of recruits who completely remove Syracuse from their radar because of the zone. That catches up to you in March or when you're playing powerhouses like the Blue Bloods. I think that not having a chance at those blue chippers hurts us in the end. One title in 40+ years is successful? Sorry, 5 final fours are not titles.

I'm currently immersed in a heated discussion with some Cuse fans about this. These two guys think the zone is overall beneficial to the program. I don't, for the life of me, get it. Help me understand how having a smaller pool of players to choose from makes you a better D1 program.

For the most part, I think the zone builds in a pretty solid floor, but can cap the ceiling of the team. When you prioritize length, wingspan and defense over actual basketball skill and scoring, as we've seen in the past, there's only so far the program can go in any given year.

I don't know if I'd say the program is hurt by playing zone 100%, but it certainly doesn't help, IMO. It definitely turns kids off from playing here, and rightfully so. But I think it's more than just the zone that may push kids elsewhere (i.e. offense). The only question is, would the program be better if we played a lot less or zone, or none at all? Who knows.

 

[CousCuse]

Why not? Please elaborate Sigmund.

In the last 15 years the Orange coached by Jim Boeheim have been to 3 final fours and won a National Championship and in that same period had several other great teams. All this while under going a inquisition/witch hunt from the politically motivated NCAA. What would make you happy?

 

[Caboose]

In the last 15 years the Orange coached by Jim Boeheim have been to 3 final fours and won a National Championship and in that same period had several other great teams. All this while under going a inquisition/witch hunt from the politically motivated NCAA. What would make you happy?

How many titles in the last 15 years? How many has UCONN had? I realize you can't win a title every year, but zero in that time frame doesn't cut it for me. How did we fare in those Final Fours once the talent pool caught up to us? I'm not an "almost" kinda guy. Are you?

 

[SoBeCuse]

For the most part, I think the zone builds in a pretty solid floor, but can cap the ceiling of the team. When you prioritize length, wingspan and defense over actual basketball skill and scoring, as we've seen in the past, there's only so far the program can go in any given year.

I don't know if I'd say the program is hurt by playing zone 100%, but it certainly doesn't help, IMO. It definitely turns kids off from playing here, and rightfully so. But I think it's more than just the zone that may push kids elsewhere (i.e. offense). The only question is, would the program be better if we played a lot less or zone, or none at all? Who knows.

Yeah, hard to say re: your last sentence. I think we can all agree with your point that prioritizing length/wingspan for the zone can only go so far. Seems like Boeheim needs some real ISO talents offensively to overcome the prioritizing of the defense. The offensive scheme is extremely simplistic so without a transcendent type of offensive talent there is only so far the team can go. The staff isn't able to really outscheme anybody, IMO. Some of those elite blue-chippers just won't come here. There are potential other variables. Maybe some want better dorms/locker rooms, a younger coach and more of a father figure, etc. Who knows. This Bazely commitment is exciting though. Hopefully a Carey or similar PG will be joining him in Orange soon.

 

[CousCuse]

Hown many titles in the last 15 years? How many has UCONN had? I realize you can't win a title every year, but zero in that time frame doesn't cut it for me. How did we fare in those Final Fours once the talent pool caught up to us? I'm not an "almost" kinda guy. Are you?

If Arinze didn't get hurt and if the NCAA didn't deprive Fab (MHRIP) of his one chance in life to achieve something, I think those could easily be 2 more. After they sidelined Fab, the team was still so potent that they, the NCAA, had to resort to having the refs foul our whole team out against OSU. In addition the sanctions are meant to diminish the program and they did to some degree. I can't understand why certain fans won't give their full support to JB's final run as a coach. It is almost like they want to finish off where the NCAA left off from. He can easily win multiple NC's between now and when he retires, IMHO.

 

[Caboose]

Yeah, hard to say re: your last sentence. I think we can all agree with your point that prioritizing length/wingspan for the zone can only go so far. Seems like Boeheim needs some real ISO talents offensively to overcome the prioritizing of the defense. The offensive scheme is extremely simplistic so without a transcendent type of offensive talent there is only so far the team can go. The staff isn't able to really outscheme anybody, IMO. Some of those elite blue-chippers just won't come here. There are potential other variables. Maybe some want better dorms/locker rooms, a younger coach and more of a father figure, etc. Who knows. This Bazely commitment is exciting though. Hopefully a Carey or similar PG will be joining him in Orange soon.

I agree. I'm also very excited about Bazley. I zeroed in on him after seeing we were in on this guy and looking at his schools of interest, as well as his reasons for decommitting from OSU- wants a bigger stage, playing time, and a big name coach. No blue bloods in the mix and only UL, GTown, and Florida with a real shot to snag him, and I was very optimistic, texting my buddies that we may get this kid. Now yes, Carey would be great. Not sure where Ayala is at this point but if he stays in 2018 and comes here I would love that.

 

[Caboose]

If Arinze didn't get hurt and if the NCAA didn't deprive Fab (MHRIP) of his one chance in life to achieve something, I think those could easily be 2 more. After they sidelined Fab, the team was still so potent that they, the NCAA, had to resort to having the refs foul our whole team out against OSU. In addition the sanctions are meant to diminish the program and they did to some degree. I can't understand why certain fans won't give their full support to JB's final run as a coach. It is almost like they want to finish off where the NCAA left off from. He can easily win multiple NC's between now and when he retires, IMHO.

I definitely agree with you about Arinze and Fab. I think we would have won a title or possibly two had those unfortunate circumstances not gone down as they had. I know that counters my argument here a bit but I still say that overall we would be much better served to scrap this 100% zone philosophy. I know it's not going to happen, just saying for arguments sake. JB has my full support and the implication that he doesn't is absurd. I'm simply debating the fallacy that 100% zone is better in terms of recruiting and ultimately chances for a title than a more open-minded defensive approach from our head coach, whoever that would be.

 

[CousCuse]

I definitely agree with you about Arinze and Fab. I think we would have won a title or possibly two had those unfortunate circumstances not gone down as they had. I know that counters my argument here a bit but I still say that overall we would be much better served to scrap this 100% zone philosophy. I know it's not going to happen, just saying for arguments sake. JB has my full support and the implication that he doesn't is absurd. I'm simply debating the fallacy that 100% zone is better in terms of recruiting and ultimately chances for a title than a more open-minded defensive approach from our head coach, whoever that would be.

I would think it is very difficult to judge the zone without taking into consideration that the NCAA has taken two whacks at the program. What if Dook had 2 sanctions against them or Kansas. My opinion of the zone is that the first and most important thing a coach has to is to get the individual players to buy into the team concept, with sacrifice to their individual stats and accolades. The zone is a total immersion into team concept building, so I think it is superior. Again, if JB didn't get attacked by the NCAA twice for lessor things than most or all major programs have going on, I think he would be by far the winning-est coach with many championships and considered the GOAT.

 

[orangecuse]

I agree with the premise that it shouldn't be impossible for a player from SU to become a good M2M defender in the NBA, if given the chance. A few years playing zone at Cuse shouldn't stifle that skill completely. Add to that the fact that we play M2M in practice. Being a good defender involves effort and god given athletic prowess. After those two attributes some basic understanding of scheme and you're there. That said, no doubt the stigma of our zone has become an issue in recruiting. It's frustrating but reality. Not sure which Cuse player who has gone to the league and been labeled a bad defender would have been any better with more M2M experience in college? Certain guys were born to play a zone defense. Warwick, Grant, MCW. Maybe Flynn, but he got hurt before we could find out.

Exactly...effort, grit and mindset/toughness makes up the mental capacity of D and athleticism makes up the physical. I truly find it astonishing that JB repeatedly claims that his guys can't play a wink of man. Talk about 'Crying Wolf.' We may not recruit/able to land top 10-15 players, but we certainly get our share of Top 50, 75 and 100 type. Players in this category have very good athleticism and have been playing man to man defense their entire lives to the time they reach the Hill. And, that's a ton of hoops, considering all the camps, tournaments, AAU ball these kids play.

If our guys (who if they had chosen other schools or move on to other schools) would miraculously be capable of playing man. No different than the recruits we've missed on who shockingly are doing so. I watched Kevin Heurter play for Maryland several times this year, a so-called prototypical (made for zone) type guy. Incredibly, he's playing man to man, and, from what I observed, not all too shabby at that...for a frosh nonetheless.

I get that it's JB's program and that he's the captain of the ship. But for crying out loud JB, just frigging admit that this is the style that you CHOOSE to play at SU...period. His success speaks for itself, but "Come on Man!" It's not because our consistently Top 50-100 athletic players can't play a wink, that's just utter nonsense, it really is. It's mind boggling to me that he can preach this and get people to actually believe it. If all of our highly athletic recruits truly were incapable of playing any legit man to man, well, that's more of a reflection on JB than his players.

 

[Cusefan0307]

We didn't play zone full time until 96. In that period we have one title and 4 FF. Michigan State and Arizona have both had the same success as us in that time period. This is a dumb argument by CuseCaboose.

 

[Caboose]

We didn't play zone full time until 96. In that period we have one title and 4 FF. Michigan State and Arizona have both had the same success as us in that time period. This is a dumb argument by CuseCaboose.

Wonder where the currently 65.5% of poll respondents who agree w me come from...

 

[Cusefan0307]

Wonder where the currently 65.5% of poll respondents who agree w me come from...

You're bringing up a different that has nothing to do with recruiting.

JB's underperforming in the tournament happened more during the first half of his career when he played strictly man so therefore you're wrong.

 

[Caboose]

You're bringing up a different that has nothing to do with recruiting.

JB's underperforming in the tournament happened more during the first half of his career when he played strictly man so therefore you're wrong.

So what was the problem when the team "underperformed" in your educated opinion?

 

[Caboose]

You're bringing up a different that has nothing to do with recruiting.

JB's underperforming in the tournament happened more during the first half of his career when he played strictly man so therefore you're wrong.

My point is this... why can't you quit the 100% zone philosophy and open yourself up to all recruits and spot-use the zone when the situation/game calls for it? Carmelo brought the title home. Without him we'd be talking ZERO titles thanks.

 

[Cusefan0307]

So what was the problem when the team "underperformed" in your educated opinion?

We haven't underperformed on the whole the last 20 years. The two teams that did had an injury and suspension.

The first 20 years you can argue that JB had plenty of early flameouts. Some of that was due to Free Throw shooting.

Why do Arizona and MSU only have one title playing just man to man for 20 years?

 

[Funk Doc]

The zone itself with the right personnel is a great weapon and when it's at it's best, we are very tough to beat. The problem is though, we do sacrifice offensive players to find the right long athletes to make the zone great. The problem, like last season, is we didn't have the players to play it, and yet, JB still went with it.

You can't fit a square peg into a round hole. He is such an experienced coach, he should have been able to use his players strengths and tried to switch it up. I don't care how many times he would say the zone isn't the problem, they just weren't playing it right. There's no way their man to man would be any worse. They were getting lit up anyway, why not give it a try!

 

[Cusefan0307]

I agree that we should play some man to attract more talent, but Syracuse has had more success in the zone era than we did in the era we played more man. That's where CuseCaboose is wrong. I also think teams that play all man should mix some zone. It shouldn't be an all for one defense no matter it's man or zone.

 

[Caboose]

We haven't underperformed on the whole the last 20 years. The two teams that did had an injury and suspension.

The first 20 years you can argue that JB had plenty of early flameouts. Some of that was due to Free Throw shooting.

Why do Arizona and MSU only have one title playing just man to man for 20 years?

You keep focusing on Michigan St and Arizona. What about UConn? You can point out a million teams that have one or less titles but that doesn't bolster your argument that the 100% zone philosophy isn't a problem.

 

[Cusefan0307]

You keep focusing on Michigan St and Arizona. What about UConn? You can point out a million teams that have one or less titles but that doesn't bolster your argument that the 100% zone philosophy isn't a problem.

Why have we had more success playing full time zone than man?