heres what i HATE about the zone

[Townie72]

So those teams ranked ahead of us in those categories all play zone?

No.

But the 100 plus teams below SU below us play primarily or exclusively M2M.

These statistics PROVE the effectiveness of the SU zone.

 

[FrancoPizza]

Sounds like you didn't read his book! If you did you would understand and never question boeheim ever bc hes won almost a thousand games and you haven't.

I'm just curious how objective the material is in this "bible" (and yes I'm not paying $12 or whatever since we already have a few posters who can verify the material). Obviously, he explains the benefits in the book, which makes sense for the intended audience, but I'm willing to wager he only mentions lack of rebounding as the only flaw. In fact I'd be shocked if he recognizes that it lets the other team dictate tempo... that it provides athletically inferior teams an opportunity to hang around by slowing the pace... or that there are occasional circumstances that require switching out of it when opponents are in too much of a rhythm... he's never admitted to any of those as being problems. For the sake of his argument, if defensive rebounding was the only tradeoff, there would be far less controversy.

 

[AirForceOrange]

 

[Townie72]

Now imagine if we kept the zone against teams that can't figure it out and adjusted to another defense against teams that destroy it. Instead of being 11th on defense we actually might be higher on the list.

There isn't one thing anybody can say that would lead me to believe that Virginia could have been better on offense than they were yesterday, teams aren't supposed to shoot like that against a talented team.

You obviously don't understand JB's logic for playing 100% Zone and the impact on the rest of the things the team does trying to also teach M2M would have.

He explains it in detail in his recent book. You might want to read it and understand what he is saying. Or you can continue on with what you think ought to be done without understanding the logic.

 

[HOFCeluck]

I'm just curious how objective the material is in this "bible" (and yes I'm not paying $12 or whatever since we already have a few posters who can verify the material). Obviously, he explains the benefits in the book, which makes sense for the intended audience, but I'm willing to wager he only mentions lack of rebounding as the only flaw. In fact I'd be shocked if he recognizes that it lets the other team dictate tempo... that it provides athletically inferior teams an opportunity to hang around by slowing the pace... or that there are occasional circumstances that require switching out of it when opponents are in too much of a rhythm... he's never admitted to any of those as being problems. For the sake of his argument, if defensive rebounding was the only tradeoff, there would be far less controversy.

It's a good book. Theres no doubt about that.

But if you've spent enough time on this message board the reasons JB cites for all zone are hardly earth shattering.

 

[HOFCeluck]

You obviously don't understand JB's logic for playing 100% Zone and the impact on the rest of the things the team does trying to also teach M2M would have.

He explains it in detail in his recent book. You might want to read it and understand what he is saying. Or you can continue on with what you think ought to be done without understanding the logic.

...and there you go.

 

[Townie72]

Its really hard to draw any conclusions about the zone this year with as pathetic as our interior D is. we sort of have to cheat a little bit this year to compenstate for that state of affairs.

Well, what have we here. Somebody that has a clue.

But I don't know why a M2M advocate would "like" this post. Weak interior defense would be just a big of a problem with M2M. In fact out foul-prone Bigs would be likely gone sooner in the game.

 

[Townie72]

It's a good book. Theres no doubt about that.

But if you've spent enough time on this message board the reasons JB cites for all zone are hardly earth shattering.

Disagree.

I have rarely, if ever, seen the much of logic for the Zone that JB lays out discussed on here.

In fact, what we do have is people arguing that SU's success against outside shooting is somehow illusory.

instead, what we have is people who think JB uses it 100% because he's "stubborn". That, and many years ago Billy Packer or someone said on TV, "If they keep making those outside shots it's going to force XYZ team out of the zone."

 

[orangecuse]

You obviously don't understand JB's logic for playing 100% Zone and the impact on the rest of the things the team does trying to also teach M2M would have.

He explains it in detail in his recent book. You might want to read it and understand what he is saying. Or you can continue on with what you think ought to be done without understanding the logic.

Interesting that JB make comments like boxing out, not going over the back, etc. is something you learn/is taught in 6th grade, but disregards the notion then on the same principle that man to man is also learned by the 6th grade, especially at the Elite level of play most of these kids play prior to getting to Syracuse. That being the case, according to JB's own adage, how much teaching of m2m would really be taken away from time spent on zone and the rest of the things the team does? Just wondering...

 

[Townie72]

I'm just curious how objective the material is in this "bible" (and yes I'm not paying $12 or whatever since we already have a few posters who can verify the material). Obviously, he explains the benefits in the book, which makes sense for the intended audience, but I'm willing to wager he only mentions lack of rebounding as the only flaw. In fact I'd be shocked if he recognizes that it lets the other team dictate tempo... that it provides athletically inferior teams an opportunity to hang around by slowing the pace... or that there are occasional circumstances that require switching out of it when opponents are in too much of a rhythm... he's never admitted to any of those as being problems. For the sake of his argument, if defensive rebounding was the only tradeoff, there would be far less controversy.

su is determining the tempo by slowing the other team down so they more frequently shoot as the 30 second clock nears expiration.

How many of the other ACC teams would you describe as "athletically-inferior" to SU.

 

[Townie72]

Interesting that JB make comments like boxing out, not going over the back, etc. is something you learn/is taught in 6th grade, but disregards the notion then on the same principle that man to man is also learned by the 6th grade, especially at the Elite level of play most of these kids play prior to getting to Syracuse. That being the case, according to JB's own adage, how much teaching of m2m would really be taken away from time spent on zone and the rest of the things the team does? Just wondering...

He maintains that the time required would be significant. And that it would have a negative impact on everything else.

 

[HOFCeluck]

He maintains that the time required would be significant. And that it would have a negative impact on everything else.

Which would be valid...if I never seen coaches like Coach K, Rick Pitino, Bill Self, and Jim Boeheim use two defenses effectively.

The funny thing is that since they started working together on USAB, Coach K has implemented more zone situationally...as JB has become more rigid.

 

[orangecuse]

He maintains that the time required would be significant. And that it would have a negative impact on everything else.

Well, his thinking is interesting, again, based on his own adage, that certain basic fundamentals (which would include m2m D) are learned and taught in the 6th grade.

 

[SWC75]

So those teams ranked ahead of us in those categories all play zone?

Does it matter? I think the point is, if you #11 in a division of 346 teams in something, that something is not one of your problems and what defense you used to achieve that is irrelevant, so long as it worked. .

 

[Townie72]

It's actually creepy how much of a hard-on you have for Boeheim and the zone.

Genuinely creepy. And I like both of them.

I'm just defending the coach and the style of play against the statistically-challenged and those who are on record as not liking JB.

 

[SWC75]

Yeah. I can just see Lydon in M2M against any number of big men in the ACC. You wouldn't have to worry about 3 pointers then. We don't have the big men to handle good, or even average, talent under the glass in the zone let alone M2M.

Agreed.

Again, if you are not playing well in the zone, you aren't moving your feet enough. What sense does it make to suggest that you'd do better in a man-to-man, where you have to chase people all over the court?

 

[SWC75]

Our zone is like a pitcher with only a fastball, when you are 1 dimensional, good coaches figure out how to beat you and exploit its weakness. I'm a fan of mixing it up to keep them guessing. Sometimes m2m works better for some teams and the zone for others.

Our zone has multiple dimensions, depending on how the coaches want to adjust it. Of course if the players don't play a defense well, the defense doesn't have any dimensions.

 

[Townie72]

Well, his thinking is interesting, again, based on his own adage, that certain basic fundamentals (which would include m2m D) are learned and taught in the 6th grade.

So there's no difference between the M2M played in an average US high school and that taught and used by Mike K at Duke?

The 100% commitment to the Zone or M2M allows a team to continually improve of the nuances and minor variations that make it effective. Trying to do them both weakens them both. How many times have commentators and coaches said "You can't simulate the SU zone in practice".

 

[HOFCeluck]

Agreed.

Again, if you are not playing well in the zone, you aren't moving your feet enough. What sense does it make to suggest that you'd do better in a man-to-man, where you have to chase people all over the court?

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=230320183

http://espn.go.com/ncb/gamecast?gameId=283300183&version=mobile&gcSection=boxscore&src=desktop

 

[br801]

View attachment 54999

What percentage of all posts on this board do you think reference this topic? I'd guess about 10%, conservatively.

 

[Fly Rodder]

Which would be valid...if I never seen coaches like Coach K, Rick Pitino, Bill Self, and Jim Boeheim use two defenses effectively.

Sean Miller hates the zone defense, but has started to use it this season to mix it up situationally due to his team's limitations. They must have extra practices or something to suddenly pick up a 2nd defense this season.

 

[orangecuse]

So there's no difference between the M2M played in an average US high school and that taught and used by Mike K at Duke?

The 100% commitment to the Zone or M2M allows a team to continually improve of the nuances and minor variations that make it effective. Trying to do them both weakens them both. How many times have commentators and coaches said "You can't simulate the SU zone in practice".

I think the principle fundamental are, but as you elude to the nuances and minor variations are drilled/honed in more, certainly more advance instruction by the elites like coach K. I guess I just find it difficult to believe that under 100% of the time, playing zone and nothing but zone is the holy grail. If it were, wouldn't more teams play zone exclusively? The only other team I recall playing zone exclusively was the 'ol Temple, John Chaney days and his 'match-up' zone.

 

[NineOneSeven]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=230320183

http://espn.go.com/ncb/gamecast?gameId=283300183&version=mobile&gcSection=boxscore&src=desktop

What does Hakim know!

BTW- Great game and love McNeil.

 

[Townie72]

I think the principle fundamental are, but as you elude to the nuances and minor variations are drilled/honed in more, certainly more advance instruction by the elites like coach K. I guess I just find it difficult to believe that under 100% of the time, playing zone and nothing but zone is the holy grail. If it were, wouldn't more teams play zone exclusively? The only other team I recall playing zone exclusively was the 'ol Temple, John Chaney days and his 'match-up' zone.

How many teams and coaches play M2M 100% of the time?

Why do they do that?

 

[FrancoPizza]

su is determining the tempo by slowing the other team down so they more frequently shoot as the 30 second clock nears expiration.

How many of the other ACC teams would you describe as "athletically-inferior" to SU.

SU isn't trying to slow the tempo. If anything, they would prefer other teams to rush their sets because that would more likely result in poor shot selection or a turnover. In matchups where the opponent does not have a talent advantage, smart coaches elect to slow the tempo against a zone because it increases the odds of a better shot and, with proper ball reversals, forces the defense to expend a lot more energy. It's very deflating for the guards and forwards to slide for 30 seconds only to have some stiff hit a wide open 3. Truth is, just because a team waits until there are 5 seconds left to shoot doesn't automatically imply they were suffocated for the previous 25 seconds. With teams that are not fundamentally sound or prepared, yes, but any reasonably coached team (e.g. the top half of the ACC) knows that to beat a zone you don't need to take the first good shot you get... unless you want to play at a faster pace (e.g. North Carolina).

To answer your second question, the bottom third of the ACC is probably athletically inferior, and especially the majority of the non-P5 games in November and December. There's just no logical argument to play 100% zone in those matchups. It's universal knowledge that minimizing possessions favors the less talented team. So why on earth would SU want to purposely slow the pace of the game? I think JB at his core still wants to run and play fast, but his allegiance to the zone has created this Stockholm Syndrome where everything that used to matter is now irrelevant. I could be way off-base, who knows... but that's the general vibe that I'm picking up.

How many teams and coaches play M2M 100% of the time?

Why do they do that?

Teams that are primarily m2m-oriented should also be willing to practice some zone to be able to deploy it as match-ups dictate. The practice limitations argument is just spin. Coaches just get stuck in their ways.