Explain to me 1 thing the zone takes away ?

[Newhouser]

It is a good defense but like everything in basketball - you need athletes to execute it. The failure of the zone is an indictment on our recruiting. Also there is no choice with this roster - can you imagine this team playing man?

 

[cuseguy]

I don't think this is true.
We had Rony Seikaly. He was pretty key.
We had Arinze. He was pretty key, on a team everyone said should have gone to the NC.
We had Fab Melo. He was pretty key on a good team.

The only real counter argument is that 2003 had Forth and McNeil, who weren't key in terms of depending on them for scoring, but they were both big, strong, could rebound, protect the rim, and not get bullied. And we had Hak and Carmelo to supplement them.

You’re talking about 3 centers over the course of 35 years. Sure there’s been exceptions. But few and far between.

 

[RF2044]

I think that the zone was an impressive innovation in the 90s. Problem is - the game has evolved, teams now emphasize three point shooting, and players are able to shoot from distances / range that weren't part of normal shot selection 20+ years ago.

I feel like this system is so personnel driven, it hasn't provided much of an advantage most years.

 

[cuseguy]

"A bit of a project offensively." You sir, are the master of understatement.

Yeah, I was being kind.

 

[kuethstheman]

What does the zone take away?

At its best, practically everything.

At its worst, practically nothing.

 

[chugg21]

I’m old enough to remember all the way back to 2018, when this very same zone defense (with different personnel) was the 5th best D in the country.

So does that mean that it's a great idea to play it exclusively when we don't have the personnel?

 

[UnknownOrange]

it takes away joy from your life

boom roasted

 

[orangepassion]

1 thing about zone: SU seems to make little effort to box out.
Understand it's not M2M and box your guy, but there are opportunities.
Rarely see an effort to back up/find a guy nearby to box out.
Edwards did a nice textbook box out tonight.
(only good from this game: able to watch Edwards for extended minutes and imagine the future!)

Agree. i've seen a few games midyear when we were playing well that our guys actually blocked out, but most games they don't seem to even try to do so. Rebounding is usually the X-Factor to how we play. When we rebound adequately, we usually win.

 

[AZOrange]

I think that the zone was an impressive innovation in the 90s. Problem is - the game has evolved, teams now emphasize three point shooting, and players are able to shoot from distances / range that weren't part of normal shot selection 20+ years ago.

I feel like this system is so personnel driven, it hasn't provided much of an advantage most years.

Can you imagine this personnel trying to play man?

 

[Fly Rodder]

Can you imagine this personnel trying to play man?

I don't know, plenty of teams have decent M2M teams with less than NBA athletes.

350 D1 schools play mostly man defense. They don't all have killers on there.

 

[kuethstheman]

I don't know, plenty of teams have decent M2M teams with less than NBA athletes.

350 D1 schools play mostly man defense. They don't all have killers on there.

And our defense is better than most of them.

 

[kuethstheman]

Can you imagine this personnel trying to play man?

JB made a rare trade. He went with offense over defense. If he were going to switch to man, he'd probably have to go with Jalen (if healthy), Brycen, and Q. THAT team could probably play man, just fine.

 

[Fly Rodder]

And our defense is better than most of them.

Wooo!

Take that Colgate!

 

[AZOrange]

I don't know, plenty of teams have decent M2M teams with less than NBA athletes.

350 D1 schools play mostly man defense. They don't all have killers on there.

It’s not just being athletic. QG is plenty athletic. Jesse is plenty athletic. Marek is plenty athletic. They’d foul out in approximately 5 min. The zone is not our issue. Depth of talent is. And no scheme hides that (although zone tries to).

 

[malpearl31]

So does that mean that it's a great idea to play it exclusively when we don't have the personnel?

probably not.

but it's a little silly to pretend that it can no longer work in 2020 when it worked perfectly well 2 years ago, wouldn't you agree?

 

[miamicuse]

THE GOAL IS TO WIN THE GAME

YOU ALL SEEM TO THINK IF WE DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT, GET TWO MINUTES OF REST, PLAY MAN, IT WOULD HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE!

NOT ONE PERSON CAN TELL ME WHO'S AT FAULT FOR ANY GIVEN PLAY!

WE HAVE GOT TO MAKE SHOTS!

THEIR DEFENSE WAS BETTER THAN OUR OFFENSE, OR OUR OFFENSE WAS NOT AS GOOD AS THEIR DEFENSE!

CASE CLOSED! NEXT! NO SOUP FOR ANY OF YOU! ARE YOU PARANOID? I WASN'T LOOKING AT YOU!!!

 

[Fly Rodder]

probably not.

but it's a little silly to pretend that it can no longer work in 2020 when it worked perfectly well 2 years ago, wouldn't you agree?

Lots of systems can work when there is just the right combination of size, speed, and experience. It's whether or not it's the most effective. The 2-3 zone has morphed into some kind of Rube Goldberg contraption that will turn the lights on perfectly when everything else falls into place.

 

[Red Holzman]

JB made a rare trade. He went with offense over defense.

Worked out like a Knicks trade -JK.
Expected SU to rely on some great 3 point shooting, but hasn't happend in general.

 

[malpearl31]

Lots of systems can work when there is just the right combination of size, speed, and experience. It's whether or not it's the most effective. The 2-3 zone has morphed into some kind of Rube Goldberg contraption that will turn the lights on perfectly when everything else falls into place.

I don't disagree with you - there are a lot of defenses that can work well, if executed correctly.

Is there a specific defensive scheme that you think would be particularly well-suited to our current personnel?

 

[tbonezone]

“Hence that general is skilful in attack whose opponent does not know what to defend; and he is skilful in defense whose opponent does not know what to attack.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

we are 100 % predictable on both ends of the court. same sets , players and strategy every possession.
must be the easiest team to game plan for in the NCAA. same looks . zero surprises . no adjustments.

 

[TinyManInside]

THE GOAL IS TO WIN THE GAME

YOU ALL SEEM TO THINK IF WE DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT, GET TWO MINUTES OF REST, PLAY MAN, IT WOULD HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE!

NOT ONE PERSON CAN TELL ME WHO'S AT FAULT FOR ANY GIVEN PLAY!

WE HAVE GOT TO MAKE SHOTS!

THEIR DEFENSE WAS BETTER THAN OUR OFFENSE, OR OUR OFFENSE WAS NOT AS GOOD AS THEIR DEFENSE!

CASE CLOSED! NEXT! NO SOUP FOR ANY OF YOU! ARE YOU PARANOID? I WASN'T LOOKING AT YOU!!!

Great post, but you forgot "GET OFF MY LAWN!"

 

[malpearl31]

we are 100 % predictable on both ends of the court. same sets , players and strategy every possession.
must be the easiest team to game plan for in the NCAA. same looks . zero surprises . no adjustments.

you hit the nail right on the head. most coaches salivate at the prospect of facing SU. they circle the game on their schedule and mark it with a 'W' early in the year and usually cancel practices in the days leading up to the game.

 

[Ghost]

Can you imagine this personnel trying to play man?

I can. We got some fundamentally sound players - that just can't cover spaces/areas because they're slow af. I'm not sure how that translates into M2M outside of we may need to use the bench more...but other teams do it.

Heck, McMahon was able to D up and we never went on some giant run. So, anyone can!

 

[Fly Rodder]

I don't disagree with you - there are a lot of defenses that can work well, if executed correctly.

Is there a specific defensive scheme that you think would be particularly well-suited to our current personnel?

That's a tough hypothetical because there are a lot of variables involved. I just don't think that there is only one way to skin a cat. Huggins seems to get his teams to play well defensively regardless of personnel and under different schemes.

The guys that go play at UVA and Wisconsin aren't uber talented, but they play exceptional defense year in and year out regardless of personnel. Texas Tech under Beard has been doing the same. I don't like the pack-line though because I think it leads to ugly basketball, which is where the zone has been since Ennis.

If playing 100% 2-3 zone was the most effective way to get a group of 5-8 guys into the top-20 defenses year in and year out, I think we'd see a lot more teams playing that way and recruiting that way. Bu they don't. So, I think Syracuse handicaps themselves trying to get the zone to work as well as it can. Next season isn't going to be much better because Buddy and JGIII aren't going anywhere. John Gillon got a lot of heat on these forums because he was bad defensively, but his stats and Buddy's are eerily similar.

 

[AZOrange]

probably not.

but it's a little silly to pretend that it can no longer work in 2020 when it worked perfectly well 2 years ago, wouldn't you agree?

The defense has been good enough to win lately but the offense is really bad. For a team of supposed shooters the shooting is abysmal