Explain to me 1 thing the zone takes away ?

[malpearl31]

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.

Good post, I agree with virtually all of it. If I was a coach, I think I would implement multiple defenses as a way to keep the opposing offense off-balance (my HS coach had this philosophy, and it worked fairly well for us a hundred years ago). JB's rationale for choosing one defense and sticking with it exclusively has been that with limited practice time, he prefers to have more time available for the offensive side of the ball. (Though you probably wouldn't have thought that with the way we played the last 2 years before this season.)

My issue with the zone is that it seems to force us to always have to play 2 guards, 2 forwards and 1 center - meaning, we can't really "go small" with the zone and maybe throw a 3 or 4-guard lineup out there for long stretches. I don't think we've seen a lineup of Guerrier, Hughes, Boeheim, Girard and Goodine/Washington - but there are probably times when our opponent has gone small, and that lineup may have worked.

 

[Cusefan0307]

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

We still made our 2's. I'd say the previous 4 games we lost prior to last night we lost because of defense not holding the lead.

 

[Alsacs]

It is so freaking stupid to claim this team can’t play man to man defense when we have no clue.
Boeheim doesn’t even consider it.

How do mid major teams with lesser athletes ever play man to man against P5 teams and win?
My god our fans are just so disingenuous in analyzing this stuff.
Just say it’s the HC’s decision and we can’t change his mind.

Mixing m2m with the zone is something that can be done and should be in our arsenal.

This is fairly obvious for sure.

 

[FrancoPizza]

can you imagine this team playing man?

We’re 14-12. It would be nice to know we tried other ideas. What do we have to lose?

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. But they don't.

This is the most damning proof. When someone starts or invents something that works other coaches always try to copy.

when people say we shouldn’t even try man maybe what they mean is JB shouldn’t even try it if he’s not willing to give it a fair shot. But there are a few here who actually think the players will break out in hives if they have to guard one person and defend a pick and roll.

 

[malpearl31]

Just say it’s the HC’s decision and we can’t change his mind.

This is exactly where we've been for many years now - JB is the coach, he wants to exclusively play zone, and so that's what we do. That doesn't stop people from complaining about it, even though there's virtually no chance he's going to change his mind at this point.
Threads like this one will be around for as long as JB is manning the sidelines.

 

[Alsacs]

This is exactly where we've been for many years now - JB is the coach, he wants to exclusively play zone, and so that's what we do. That doesn't stop people from complaining about it, even though there's virtually no chance he's going to change his mind at this point.
Threads like this one will be around for as long as JB is manning the sidelines.

I agree and for posters to try and spin that we can’t play man to man because the zone isn’t good is just as i said disingenuous. Athleticism doesn’t mean you can’t play m2m if you can’t play zone.
M2m d is completely different.
It’s Jim Boeheim’s decision and he won’t change. That is why it’s pointless to debate it. Even though the question is legitimate.

 

[SBU72]

It’s all JB knows...he doesn’t know anything else.

Oh so wrong. JB had a good man d years ago. Check some older u-tube . Can't pinpoint what year (others can I'm sure) but JB noticed teams in th tourny had a tough time playing against a good zone especially the 2nd day of a set of games. Since NCAA tournament means everything, he went that route playimg zone and a type of zone no other team does. It has taken SU a long ways

 

[chugg21]

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?

I'm pretty sure that 0 people have ever said that the zone will never succeed ever again. The discussion is that it is certainly broken this year and its kind of ridiculous to not at least try to mix things up every now and then.

 

[Fly Rodder]

I would have no problem with the 100% zone defense if it wasn't directly or indirectly responsible for many of limitations we've seen with the team over the last 5-6 years. We either have to give up on recruiting talent that doesn't meet the size/lateral speed requirements, or not play offensive talent (which is debatable since SU transfers haven't exactly lit it up elsewhere) who can't play zone, play stall-ball, take on projects for the 5 because any long bouncy 7-fters with shot blocking ability and offensive skills are usually ticketed to a Duke or UK and then the NBA or have no interest in playing JAB's defense and offense.

It just seems like it takes too much to make work, but when it does, it's really effective - so I see the attractiveness.

 

[Alsacs]

I would have no problem with the 100% zone defense if it wasn't directly or indirectly responsible for many of limitations we've seen with the team over the last 5-6 years. We either have to give up on recruiting talent that doesn't meet the size/lateral speed requirements, or not play offensive talent (which is debatable since SU transfers haven't exactly lit it up elsewhere) who can't play zone, play stall-ball, take on projects for the 5 because any long bouncy 7-fters with shot blocking ability and offensive skills are usually ticketed to a Duke or UK and then the NBA or have no interest in playing JAB's defense and offense.

It just seems like it takes too much to make work, but when it does, it's really effective - so I see the attractiveness.

JB’s zone works.
That isn’t the issue here.
It’s that our HC won’t change the D periodically when the personnel we have doesn’t fit the zone as well as other teams.
Instead it’s force the round peg into the square hole 100% of the time. When maybe instead of 100% zone it was 90% zone 10% m2m when the zone is being shredded.

We have people here basically saying how can our players play m2m when EVERY OTHER TEAM IN THE NATION does it but our guys will be even worse at D trying it.
It’s so disingenuous. Our HC just doesn’t want to do anything different it’s simple.

 

[hoopsupstate]

It’s hard to believe that SU has the only 12 players in the country who can’t play man to man. That’s amazing talent evaluation.

 

[kuethstheman]

I'm pretty sure that 0 people have ever said that the zone will never succeed ever again. The discussion is that it is certainly broken this year and its kind of ridiculous to not at least try to mix things up every now and then.

That's been said. A.lot.

 

[chugg21]

That's been said. A.lot.

Show me. I'm on this site a lot and have never seen anyone say that the zone absolutely can not be successful ever again. It's been said that it will be terrible with Girard/Buddy up top.

 

[stuckinbig11]

depends on who the players are

 

[jdubs30]

If this team played man, I still think Buddy and Joe would struggle.

If you’re a great man defender, you’re a great zone defender, and vice versa.

 

[malpearl31]

I'm pretty sure that 0 people have ever said that the zone will never succeed ever again. The discussion is that it is certainly broken this year and its kind of ridiculous to not at least try to mix things up every now and then.

Well, if you re-read the original post that kicked off this thread, you'll see that there's at least 1 person who believes that JB's zone doesn't take away 3s, doesn't take away inside shots, doesn't take away mid-range shots, doesn't force turnovers...

 

[malpearl31]

That's been said. A.lot.

It's more fun to pretend that it hasn't been said, though... for some reason that seems to make people feel better.

 

[chugg21]

Well, if you re-read the original post that kicked off this thread, you'll see that there's at least 1 person who believes that JB's zone doesn't take away 3s, doesn't take away inside shots, doesn't take away mid-range shots, doesn't force turnovers...

And if you re-read it as well, you can decipher that he is referring to this years zone.

 

[tbonezone]

most coaches salivate at the prospect of facing SU.

we play 6 dudes and only sub for foul trouble. we sit in zone all game until forced into trunk monkey.
44% of our shots are treys and just 2 guys take 62 % of those. inside the arc it's few assists and a lot of ISO.
what did i forget ? there's your scouting report. so easy a caveman could do it. cuz we got a caveman coach.

 

[FrancoPizza]

he went that route playimg zone and a type of zone no other team does. It has taken SU a long ways

our offensive efficiency has been more indicative of overall team success year in year out. You can argue that the zone infatuation is what led to the offense’s demise.

 

[SWC75]

-doesn’t take away 3’s
-doesn’t take away lay ups or dunks
-doesn’t take away mid range
-doesn’t force turnovers
-doesn’t prevent offense rebounding

I mean even years when our zone was bad we usually had a give and take .. maybe it wasn’t as good allowing 3’s but that usually meant it was tough sledding to score inside ... or maybe it forced a ton of turnovers ...or maybe it prevented the 3’s but allowed easier inside scoring ..

But this zone is basically garbage ..

THIS zone doesn't take away those things, (except maybe the turnovers- we're not so bad at that). A well-played Syracuse zone takes all of that away. This is a bad defensive team and they wouldn't be much good in any defense. We have to out-score other people and we've found it harder and harder to do that.

 

[OrangeDW]

“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.

Lol. That’s because you follow us. Every team is “predictable” if you follow them closely. It’s not about tricking the other team.

We need better talent. This will be the 3rd straight year with no first round pick on the team.

 

[kuethstheman]

THIS zone doesn't take away those things, (except maybe the turnovers- we're not so bad at that). A well-played Syracuse zone takes all of that away. This is a bad defensive team and they wouldn't be much good in any defense. We have to out-score other people and we've found it harder and harder to do that.

I'd like to see if it's that a bad defensive team with some of the bench guys playing big minutes, man or zone. We wouldn't have gotten far with BG and QG as starters at the beginning of the season but maybe we could now.

 

[kuethstheman]

Show me. I'm on this site a lot and have never seen anyone say that the zone absolutely can not be successful ever again. It's been said that it will be terrible with Girard/Buddy up top.

I won't show you but the narrative is: There are too many good shooters, these days + JB hasn't noticed = the game has passed him by.

This is independent of Buddy/JGIII/whoever and is often said just before a year in which we have a dominant zone. I guess it bodes well for next season, although I'd be surprised if it turns out that way.

 

[malpearl31]

And if you re-read it as well, you can decipher that he is referring to this years zone.

so it's not the zone, it's the personnel. cool, we agree.