I’m no basketball guru but..

[IDOC]

I know JB loved the zone, our new coach likes man to man but our players prefer “all run to the ball”.

 

[Newhouser]

Any defense - man, zone, triangle and 2, box and one...whatever - requires 2 things - communication and want, and thus far we have demonstrated neither.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

Any defense - man, zone, triangle and 2, box and one...whatever - requires 2 things - communication and want, and thus far we have demonstrated neither.

If you don’t actually put in any effort , style of D is just conversation

 

[gmoney44]

Our lateral quickness on defense has been a problem for years. Ball carriers have easily penetrated our zone and man defense. Every defense is doomed to failure when that happens.

 

[NineOneSeven]

At times our defense has been quite good this year. Saying we haven’t done the things necessary for effective defense this year is incorrect. The consistency is lacking and sadly for extremely long stretches it is non existent. That’s obviously a problem, as there are often far too many breakdowns where it seems we have 4 players on the court. And then it rains, then it pours.

 

[hungrychuck]

At times our defense has been quite good this year. Saying we haven’t done the things necessary for effective defense this year is incorrect. The consistency is lacking and sadly for extremely long stretches it is non existent. That’s obviously a problem, as there are often far too many breakdowns where it seems we have 4 players on the court. And then it rains, then it pours.

Consistency is lacking in every aspect of this team.

But that’s what a mediocre team - probably a kind assessment - looks like.

 

[JDubbin]

It also feels like we’re giving up 100% from 3 every time we run the ridiculous 2-3 Zone on opponent inbounds, it’s genuinely wild… it’s like the other team can’t wait for the opportunity

 

[IthacaMatt]

Our lateral quickness on defense has been a problem for years. Ball carriers have easily penetrated our zone and man defense. Every defense is doomed to failure when that happens.

We have guys on this team with sufficient lateral quickness. Maybe they just don't drill them enough of the techniques of how to play proper man to man. I don't see many of these guys move their feet laterally to stay in front of defenders.

It took about 5 weeks before they began to understand how to swtich on a high pick & roll, and another 2 weeks beyond that for the forwards to understand that they had to guard the big diving to the basket, when the C stops the PG on a pick & roll.

So far, I am not very impressed with Autry's actual coaching skills. It's taking too long to implement things, and he's still not done. That's like a football coach not installing the whole offense until week 9 of the season.

 

[SBU72]

We have guys on this team with sufficient lateral quickness. Maybe they just don't drill them enough of the techniques of how to play proper man to man. I don't see many of these guys move their feet laterally to stay in front of defenders.

It took about 5 weeks before they began to understand how to swtich on a high pick & roll, and another 2 weeks beyond that for the forwards to understand that they had to guard the big diving to the basket, when the C stops the PG on a pick & roll.

So far, I am not very impressed with Autry's actual coaching skills. It's taking too long to implement things, and he's still not done. That's like a football coach not installing the whole offense until week 9 of the season.

Gee it seems they were trying to play man with zone principles!

 

[IthacaMatt]

Gee it seems they were trying to play man with zone principles!

Well, a couple things we learned are that nobody learns to play any defense at all in AAU / EYBL ball, and the other thing is that it takes a lot of work to teach these guys how to play man to man defense.

I thought it was supposed to be "so easy" for us to play man, because "they all grew up playing man". But the truth is that these kids grew up without learning how to play defense at all, really.

 

[Ringostar57]

Need to hire Gene Hackman to instill some Hickory into these fellas

 

[kingtidge]

Watching dook v. ND... JB going to bat for the ACC conference for NCAA births as the conference with the most wins and champos in last decade...

Fonzi on waterskis... Jeezus.

 

[Orangeman]

I'm actually watching more college basketball this year than a long time. My takeaway, FWIW, is that our basketball philosophy for the past 10 years has been catastrophic in terms of our style of play, and the players we were getting.

I'm watching Providence vs. Creighton...Providence is pretty good despite losing a draft pick to an ACL, and Creighton is like #21...

These teams started the half 7-7 and 5-5 against GOOD, TOUGH M2M Defense...and we've been playing "leave-'em-open-zone".

Just a huge miss tactically for us, unfortunately. There's been generational growth in the "teaching of basketball" and all these players can put the ball in the basket.

Perhaps an old argument, but it's a huge lingering problem that fans need to understand from a sanity perspective.

In Football terms we were playing and recruiting to Wishbone when the world went Run/Shoot

 

[Orangeman]

Oh, and we desperately need to change the atmosphere/seating in the Dome stat...like it or not, but our games just look/appear crummy on TV vs. all these other arenas.

I'm pretty well convinced that anyone arguing this point just doesn't watch much basketball. It's a problem.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Oh, and we desperately need to change the atmosphere/seating in the Dome stat...like it or not, but our games just look/appear crummy on TV vs. all these other arenas.

I'm pretty well convinced that anyone arguing this point just doesn't watch much basketball. It's a problem.

Well, we have to get people excited about the product again.

 

[Orangeman]

Well, we have to get people excited about the product again.

I mean whatever...empty seats, ZERO enthusiasm in those seats on TV. It's bad, REALLY bad. Not all these teams I'm watching are Top 20 but the experience is very legit compared to what we see

 

[OrangePA]

I'm actually watching more college basketball this year than a long time. My takeaway, FWIW, is that our basketball philosophy for the past 10 years has been catastrophic in terms of our style of play, and the players we were getting.

I'm watching Providence vs. Creighton...Providence is pretty good despite losing a draft pick to an ACL, and Creighton is like #21...

These teams started the half 7-7 and 5-5 against GOOD, TOUGH M2M Defense...and we've been playing "leave-'em-open-zone".

Just a huge miss tactically for us, unfortunately. There's been generational growth in the "teaching of basketball" and all these players can put the ball in the basket.

Perhaps an old argument, but it's a huge lingering problem that fans need to understand from a sanity perspective.

In Football terms we were playing and recruiting to Wishbone when the world went Run/Shoot

I don’t that.

Man to man defense shares the same characteristics of a match up zone defense.

You have to play hard and play smart to be effective on defense no matter what system you might use.

 

[Orangeman]

I don’t that.

Man to man defense shares the same characteristics of a match up zone defense.

You have to play hard and play smart to be effective on defense no matter what system you might use.

Just disagree, potentially by a LOT

We were recruiting athletes who can fit into a Zone. Not basketball players.

And it really, really shows

There's a reason Syracuse has only won it all when it had a SF who happened to be a 6'9 All-American. Yes, he happened to be a top 2 player in the country, but he also rebounded big-time from the weak-side).

That's the Zone effect. In M2M you're blocking out your man.

 

[dollarbill44]

Oh, and we desperately need to change the atmosphere/seating in the Dome stat...like it or not, but our games just look/appear crummy on TV vs. all these other arenas.

I'm pretty well convinced that anyone arguing this point just doesn't watch much basketball. It's a problem.

We don't need to change the seating. It's been fine every season we've had a good team (this is the problem). When the Dome is full and the game is good, there is no better atmosphere.

 

[OrangePA]

Just disagree, potentially by a LOT

We were recruiting athletes who can fit into a Zone. Not basketball players.

And it really, really shows

There's a reason Syracuse has only won it all when it had a SF who happened to be a 6'9 All-American. Yes, he happened to be a top 2 player in the country, but he also rebounded big-time from the weak-side).

That's the Zone effect. In M2M you're blocking out your man.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

In what sense did JB recruit zone players or "athletes who can fit into a Zone" - what qualities fit that description?

Size, speed, quickness, agility, toughness, effort?

What exactly separates a "zone" player from a man-to-man player?

 

[Orangezoo]

Oh, and we desperately need to change the atmosphere/seating in the Dome stat...like it or not, but our games just look/appear crummy on TV vs. all these other arenas.

I'm pretty well convinced that anyone arguing this point just doesn't watch much basketball. It's a problem.

It’s not just us to be fair. I’ve never see so many conference games with docile crowds and weak attendance.

 

[Orangeman]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

In what sense did JB recruit zone players or "athletes who can fit into a Zone" - what qualities fit that description?

Size, speed, quickness, agility, toughness, effort?

What exactly separates a "zone" player from a man-to-man player?

This would require a longer description, and obviously this is just my perception, but the easiest way to describe this is the recruitment of Centers and Forwards. Essentially, instead of recruiting the "Best Player", our strategy was to recruit players that would best fit our Defensive philosophy of covering the floor in a zone. Skills like shooting, POSTING UP, Interior Offense, post defense, etc etc seemed to sacrificed to the need to defend & rebound in the 2-3 zone setting. (Sure we hit on some good players, like Grant etc...to be fair, one issue that's dogged the program is this one-year wonder phenomenon where our talented players who were pro prospects but not yet ready to actually play in the pros always took off, to the detriment of our program as well as the players' development, I'd argue, but a lot of top programs were hit with this bug too).

The problem is while we were doing this, the actual skill level of all positions was rising, probably due to the professionalization of youth/junior basketball training, and the reality that these "freshman" arriving on campuses were really sophomores/juniors by age/experience and ready to tear apart a zone defense that coaches had certainly learned to scheme against and often left a player guarding "space" while the opponent overloaded a side and crashed the boards for O rebounds. So I'd argue that we were recruiting to a defensive strategy that was going to get worse over time.

Offensively this hurt us in particular because we eventually lost all form of a Post game. We lacked players who could post up, and even players that could throw a post-pass (still befuddling to me). This made our OFFENSE very perimeter-focused, and without an inside game to worry about, it forces the perimeter O further away from the basket and puts less pressure on defenders and more pressure on our skill players to get shots. Like, we don't even have an inside pick game, haven't seen one in years, watch Creighton play if you want to see a more thorough offensive game plan.

Just my $.02 and in trying to answer your question. My summary is there are plenty of good basketball players out there that didn't fit in to our "system", i.e. 6'7-6'9" SF-types that we either missed out on or never considered.

Also, finally, I'd think the negative recruiting because the Zone D doesn't prepare you for the NBA probably didn't help.

 

[Orangeman]

It’s not just us to be fair. I’ve never see so many conference games with docile crowds and weak attendance.

The ACC is really in a BAD place...Big East, Big 12, heck even SEC is bonkers right now...high talent, high coaching, high energy, etc etc

Not sure what happened...I do think the ACC held on to coaching legends too long and a couple decades of one/done eventually catches up (while the Villanovas of the world ran around with Seniors and Juniors).

 

[OrangePA]

This would require a longer description, and obviously this is just my perception, but the easiest way to describe this is the recruitment of Centers and Forwards. Essentially, instead of recruiting the "Best Player", our strategy was to recruit players that would best fit our Defensive philosophy of covering the floor in a zone. Skills like shooting, POSTING UP, Interior Offense, post defense, etc etc seemed to sacrificed to the need to defend & rebound in the 2-3 zone setting. (Sure we hit on some good players, like Grant etc...to be fair, one issue that's dogged the program is this one-year wonder phenomenon where our talented players who were pro prospects but not yet ready to actually play in the pros always took off, to the detriment of our program as well as the players' development, I'd argue, but a lot of top programs were hit with this bug too).

The problem is while we were doing this, the actual skill level of all positions was rising, probably due to the professionalization of youth/junior basketball training, and the reality that these "freshman" arriving on campuses were really sophomores/juniors by age/experience and ready to tear apart a zone defense that coaches had certainly learned to scheme against and often left a player guarding "space" while the opponent overloaded a side and crashed the boards for O rebounds. So I'd argue that we were recruiting to a defensive strategy that was going to get worse over time.

Offensively this hurt us in particular because we eventually lost all form of a Post game. We lacked players who could post up, and even players that could throw a post-pass (still befuddling to me). This made our OFFENSE very perimeter-focused, and without an inside game to worry about, it forces the perimeter O further away from the basket and puts less pressure on defenders and more pressure on our skill players to get shots. Like, we don't even have an inside pick game, haven't seen one in years, watch Creighton play if you want to see a more thorough offensive game plan.

Just my $.02 and in trying to answer your question. My summary is there are plenty of good basketball players out there that didn't fit in to our "system", i.e. 6'7-6'9" SF-types that we either missed out on or never considered.

Also, finally, I'd think the negative recruiting because the Zone D doesn't prepare you for the NBA probably didn't help.

Personally I don’t see the difference in the skills that make a good zone player versus a good man to man player.

 

[Orangeman]

Personally I don’t see the difference in the skills that make a good zone player versus a good man to man player.

I think our coaching staff fell in love with the model after 2003, they just missed out on the luck we had with all that size on the floor (Melo as a SF in College Basketball is simply ridiculous from a scoring/rebounding perspective).

I don't know how else to explain my point other than to suggest you go watch a week's worth of Big East basketball, which BTW is chock full of about 8 teams that would clean our clock (we did beat GTown, they are 1-10 in the Big East right now). Or watch the Villanova championship teams.

Those rosters simply could not play Boeheim's 2-3 zone defense. The traditional positions from a size/length perspective wouldn't have worked, BUT they could dog you all over the court and play through screens in M2M, AND they didn't waste offensive talent at a given position based on needing size/length to fill a spot on Defense.

Appreciate the convo, but there is just a dramatic difference in how Boeheim recruited the last decade vs. the teams that have zoomed ahead of us (I think he would agree BTW)