Does playing 100% zone defense help or hurt recruiting?

[AlpharettaCuse]

All that quote points out to me is that he was willing to realize that he needs to try some things and mix it up. Maybe something we should do sometimes.

Yeah...play ZONE. ;-)

 

[FanFromOhio]

Haven’t read all the post so excuse if someone else had said this. The biggest problem with all zone is not the defense but how it limits offensive strategy. Some really good teams, Villanova is the first to come to mind will play 4 guards and a big at times. They don’t let the defense dictate the offense. It creates lots of match-up problem and allow you to put your 5 best players on the floor, especially when you need to change the flow of the game. The zone is predicated on the classic number system of having 2 guards on top and 3 forwards deep. I love the zone, but playing it 100% of time makes SU very predictable. Most competent coaches can game plan for it as we have learned since joining the ACC.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

Haven’t read all the post so excuse if someone else had said this. The biggest problem with all zone is not the defense but how it limits offensive strategy. Some really good teams, Villanova is the first to come to mind will play 4 guards and a big at times. They don’t let the defense dictate the offense. It creates lots of match-up problem and allow you to put your 5 best players on the floor, especially when you need to change the flow of the game. The zone is predicated on the classic number system of having 2 guards on top and 3 forwards deep. I love the zone, but playing it 100% of time makes SU very predictable. Most competent coaches can game plan for it as we have learned since joining the ACC.

Coaches can gameplan for it, but still can't beat it sometimes. Boeheim has beaten the best coaches in the game with it, including Pitino, Izzo, Coach K, Bill Self, Calipari and that guy from Virginia.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Haven’t read all the post so excuse if someone else had said this. The biggest problem with all zone is not the defense but how it limits offensive strategy. Some really good teams, Villanova is the first to come to mind will play 4 guards and a big at times. They don’t let the defense dictate the offense. It creates lots of match-up problem and allow you to put your 5 best players on the floor, especially when you need to change the flow of the game. The zone is predicated on the classic number system of having 2 guards on top and 3 forwards deep. I love the zone, but playing it 100% of time makes SU very predictable. Most competent coaches can game plan for it as we have learned since joining the ACC.

We played four seasons in the Big East after switching to all zone. We finished 1, 3, 1, and 5. Did the Big East not have competent coaches?

 

[FanFromOhio]

We played four seasons in the Big East after switching to all zone. We finished 1, 3, 1, and 5. Did the Big East not have competent coaches?

Didn’t say that the Big East coaches are not competent but IMO the level of coaching is better in the ACC as is the talent. In the Big East, SU had great talent, not the case in the ACC. After joining the ACC in the years you reference we finished, 2nd, 8th, 9th and 7th. I am just of the belief that playing 100% zone makes us very predictable and easier to prepare for when opponents put in a game plan.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Didn’t say that the Big East coaches are not competent but IMO the level of coaching is better in the ACC as is the talent. In the Big East, SU had great talent, not the case in the ACC. After joining the ACC in the years you reference we finished, 2nd, 8th, 9th and 7th. I am just of the belief that playing 100% zone makes us very predictable and easier to prepare for when opponents put in a game plan.

I mean, when you say "Most competent coaches can game plan for it as we have learned since joining the ACC." You're kind of implying that there weren't competent coaches in the Big East.

I would definitely not say the coaching is better in the ACC.

 

[OttoMets]

I mean, when you say "Most competent coaches can game plan for it as we have learned since joining the ACC." You're kind of implying that there weren't competent coaches in the Big East.

I would definitely not say the coaching is better in the ACC.

Agree. But I think the zone was something of an exotic bird in 1996 and 2003 from from 2010 to 2013 (except for Rick Pitino and Jamie Dixon), so it was effective due to teams' unfamiliarity with it.

Thanks to Boeheim's success, more teams play a little zone, so most coaches and players know how to attack a zone and have gotten some game reps doing so, so it's not the surprise weapon it once was.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Agree. But I think the zone was something of an exotic bird in 1996 and 2003 from from 2010 to 2013 (except for Rick Pitino and Jamie Dixon), so it was effective due to teams' unfamiliarity with it.

Thanks to Boeheim's success, more teams play a little zone, so most coaches and players know how to attack a zone and have gotten some game reps doing so, so it's not the surprise weapon it once was.

I don't disagree. Definitely a jump from "Coaching is better in then ACC" though.

I think tho it's more likely a combination of Guys not developing like they should, bad luck, and Frank Howard.