I'm having blasphemous thoughts again...

[Dave85]

Is there ever a time to play man-to-man instead of the 2-3 zone. The zone does a few things for the team. It allows players with lesser athletic ability play very good defense against superior athletes. It forces teams to attempt and make outside shots. It forces teams to make good passes to players in motion. It also slows the game down so opposing teams with much better shooters get less chances to make baskets. Those are a lot of positives

However, the 2-3 zone has a darker side. If teams are making outside shots we get roasted. If teams are good at making passes to players in motions we get burned. If the Orange are losing the game slowing down the game works in the opponents favor.

A few years ago JB made the proclamation that he came to the realization that practicing man defense was a waste of time and stopped doing it in practice. For at least three years now every single minute of every game has been the 2-3 zone on defense. Another comment JB made was when man-to-man defense breaks down people don't say, "play zone!". So JB concluded just practicing 2-3 zone allows his players to play better 2-3 defense and now the team exclusively plays 2-3 zone.

Many of the older Orange fans here remember the days when JB would occasional switch between and 2-3 zone and man defense based on the game situation. Many times early in the second half JB would play man to shake up the other team. My question for the board is does having the ability to switch to man defense occasionally have any value?

My thinking is four/five years ago when our 2-3 zone may be the best 2-3 zone defense I've seen in all my years of watching Orange BB it made sense. But the last few years with a 2-3 zone that's not as great as ones previous I've been having blasphemous thoughts again about playing man-to-man defense.

 

[dasher]

Is there ever a time to play man-to-man instead of the 2-3 zone. The zone does a few things for the team. It allows players with lesser athletic ability play very good defense against superior athletes. It forces teams to attempt and make outside shots. It forces teams to make good passes to players in motion. It also slows the game down so opposing teams with much better shooters get less chances to make baskets. Those are a lot of positives

However, the 2-3 zone has a darker side. If teams are making outside shots we get roasted. If teams are good at making passes to players in motions we get burned. If the Orange are losing the game slowing down the game works in the opponents favor.

A few years ago JB made the proclamation that he came to the realization that practicing man defense was a waste of time and stopped doing it in practice. For at least three years now every single minute of every game has been the 2-3 zone on defense. Another comment JB made was when man-to-man defense breaks down people don't say, "play zone!". So JB concluded just practicing 2-3 zone allows his players to play better 2-3 defense and now the team exclusively plays 2-3 zone.

Many of the older Orange fans here remember the days when JB would occasional switch between and 2-3 zone and man defense based on the game situation. Many times early in the second half JB would play man to shake up the other team. My question for the board is does having the ability to switch to man defense occasionally have any value?

My thinking is four/five years ago when our 2-3 zone may be the best 2-3 zone defense I've seen in all my years of watching Orange BB it made sense. But the last few years with a 2-3 zone that's not as great as ones previous I've been having blasphemous thoughts again about playing man-to-man defense.

Why waste your time thinking of this? As long as Jb is the Head coach, we will play 2-3 zone. End of story. And with the 30 second shot clock, teams won't be able to hold the ball against us if they get a lead. JB isn't changing anything at this stage.

 

[orangefog]

Personally, I wish we would switch it up. If the opposition knows what is coming, they can prepare for it. Teams in our league will learn how to play against the zone. When the zone is at it's best, then it will still be effective, but there are always ways to attack a zone, and when a team has played against it often enough, they become more comfortable playing against it. Calhoun knew how to beat the zone, and had some incredible players to do it with. So, being able to play man would help throw the opposition out of rhythm.

 

[Dave85]

Why waste your time thinking of this? As long as Jb is the Head coach, we will play 2-3 zone. End of story. And with the 30 second shot clock, teams won't be able to hold the ball against us if they get a lead. JB isn't changing anything at this stage.

You are probably right. But I think it's a very interesting question. I love the 2-3 zone. When I watch a basketball game it just doesn't look right if the team on defense isn't playing the 2-3 zone. I just think it's a very interesting question.

There are lot studies on how herds of animals and schools of fish make decisions on which direction to travel. A lot of times it takes just of few of the non-alpha members of the group to start moving in a direction and then the whole group changes direction. Maybe somebody here much smarter than me will make an argument that is so compelling the consensus of thought on this subject changes direction. Maybe this will influence the Orange culture and mindset. But I totally agree with you that it will most likely not change with JB has our head coach. And maybe that's not a bad thing either. I'm just interested in the argument for or against playing man-to-man defense.

 

[Brooky03]

I think the zone is going to perform at a high level this year. Prior to the exhibitions, I was really worried about Malachi because I'd heard defense wasn't really his thing. After the exhibitions, my mind has been put at ease. Crappy competition level aside, he appears to be learning the rotations at a pretty accelerated pace and his arms are everywhere. 6'6" is traditionally small for a Syracuse small forward but he makes up for it with more quickness than we typically have at the position and a near 7' wingspan. I think he's built for zone defense. On top of that, Roberson looks like a monster physically this year and has plenty of experience in the zone, Cooney's solid up top, and Gbinije's size is going to cause a lot of problems for guards. The only question mark I see is Coleman's ability to protect the rim. However, where Coleman falls short in shot blocking, compared to Rak, he gains points with his wide body and ability to push guys out of the paint, which Rak couldn't do.

Gbinije and Cooney would not be good m2m defenders against most guards, imo. Gbinije would struggle with the small, quick ones and Cooney might too. In m2m, Malachi could end up in a lot of post situations with bigger forwards, which would be no bueno. And Coleman would be in big trouble away from the rim. Roberson is really the only guy I see with better/same potential in m2m as zone.

On top of the personnel stuff, I think a functioning Boeheim zone does all of the things m2m can do. We can ratchet up the intensity and speed of the game by extending beyond the arc and trapping more, we can limit 3-pointers if they're killing us (Kenpom wrote an article about the effect of our zone on 3-point shooting), and teams that can pass well against the zone would pass just as well or better against our version of m2m, with the likely addition of more dribble penetration.

 

[joct]

Is there ever a time to play man-to-man instead of the 2-3 zone. The zone does a few things for the team. It allows players with lesser athletic ability play very good defense against superior athletes. It forces teams to attempt and make outside shots. It forces teams to make good passes to players in motion. It also slows the game down so opposing teams with much better shooters get less chances to make baskets. Those are a lot of positives

However, the 2-3 zone has a darker side. If teams are making outside shots we get roasted. If teams are good at making passes to players in motions we get burned. If the Orange are losing the game slowing down the game works in the opponents favor.

A few years ago JB made the proclamation that he came to the realization that practicing man defense was a waste of time and stopped doing it in practice. For at least three years now every single minute of every game has been the 2-3 zone on defense. Another comment JB made was when man-to-man defense breaks down people don't say, "play zone!". So JB concluded just practicing 2-3 zone allows his players to play better 2-3 defense and now the team exclusively plays 2-3 zone.

Many of the older Orange fans here remember the days when JB would occasional switch between and 2-3 zone and man defense based on the game situation. Many times early in the second half JB would play man to shake up the other team. My question for the board is does having the ability to switch to man defense occasionally have any value?

My thinking is four/five years ago when our 2-3 zone may be the best 2-3 zone defense I've seen in all my years of watching Orange BB it made sense. But the last few years with a 2-3 zone that's not as great as ones previous I've been having blasphemous thoughts again about playing man-to-man defense.

Away from the strategy in games, I wonder if this has inadvertently hurt the offense. In practice, they aren't going against m-m as much, and when they do, they guys on D aren't giving nearly the looks that they get in games, things like switching on picks, double teams, etc. If in practice a defender makes a mistake in m-m, they aren't being corrected, so when they practice m-m offense (which should be a lot), they are going against a D they aren't really trained in. So the games come, and it is a different story.

Might be off, as I know there were other issues, but 2 years of leading PG play (not counting last season) it was so frustrating to watch their half court offense still be so terrible. I wonder if this is a side effect.

 

[RF2044]

I think the zone is going to perform at a high level this year. Prior to the exhibitions, I was really worried about Malachi because I'd heard defense wasn't really his thing. After the exhibitions, my mind has been put at ease. Crappy competition level aside, he appears to be learning the rotations at a pretty accelerated pace and his arms are everywhere. 6'6" is traditionally small for a Syracuse small forward but he makes up for it with more quickness than we typically have at the position and a near 7' wingspan. I think he's built for zone defense. On top of that, Roberson looks like a monster physically this year and has plenty of experience in the zone, Cooney's solid up top, and Gbinije's size is going to cause a lot of problems for guards. The only question mark I see is Coleman's ability to protect the rim. However, where Coleman falls short in shot blocking, compared to Rak, he gains points with his wide body and ability to push guys out of the paint, which Rak couldn't do.

Gbinije and Cooney would not be good m2m defenders against most guards, imo. Gbinije would struggle with the small, quick ones and Cooney might too. In m2m, Malachi could end up in a lot of post situations with bigger forwards, which would be no bueno. And Coleman would be in big trouble away from the rim. Roberson is really the only guy I see with better/same potential in m2m as zone.

On top of the personnel stuff, I think a functioning Boeheim zone does all of the things m2m can do. We can ratchet up the intensity and speed of the game by extending beyond the arc and trapping more, we can limit 3-pointers if they're killing us (Kenpom wrote an article about the effect of our zone on 3-point shooting), and teams that can pass well against the zone would pass just as well or better against our version of m2m, with the likely addition of more dribble penetration.

Agreed. The size up top [and I'll include Howard / Joseph in that] is going to help offset the lack of size at all three positional units on the back line. Rebounding is going to be a struggle all year long against the big teams. But hopefully our perimeter defenders will make things tougher on the opposition.

 

[dasher]

I think the zone is going to perform at a high level this year. Prior to the exhibitions, I was really worried about Malachi because I'd heard defense wasn't really his thing. After the exhibitions, my mind has been put at ease. Crappy competition level aside, he appears to be learning the rotations at a pretty accelerated pace and his arms are everywhere. 6'6" is traditionally small for a Syracuse small forward but he makes up for it with more quickness than we typically have at the position and a near 7' wingspan. I think he's built for zone defense. On top of that, Roberson looks like a monster physically this year and has plenty of experience in the zone, Cooney's solid up top, and Gbinije's size is going to cause a lot of problems for guards. The only question mark I see is Coleman's ability to protect the rim. However, where Coleman falls short in shot blocking, compared to Rak, he gains points with his wide body and ability to push guys out of the paint, which Rak couldn't do.

Gbinije and Cooney would not be good m2m defenders against most guards, imo. Gbinije would struggle with the small, quick ones and Cooney might too. In m2m, Malachi could end up in a lot of post situations with bigger forwards, which would be no bueno. And Coleman would be in big trouble away from the rim. Roberson is really the only guy I see with better/same potential in m2m as zone.

On top of the personnel stuff, I think a functioning Boeheim zone does all of the things m2m can do. We can ratchet up the intensity and speed of the game by extending beyond the arc and trapping more, we can limit 3-pointers if they're killing us (Kenpom wrote an article about the effect of our zone on 3-point shooting), and teams that can pass well against the zone would pass just as well or better against our version of m2m, with the likely addition of more dribble penetration.

the zone should be amazing next year.

 

[FrancoPizza]

does having the ability to switch to man defense occasionally have any value?

Boy, they've really gotten into your head. You sound scared to ask that question. This is the only fanbase in the world where flexible defensive schemes is considered heresy. If anything, it's probably just a micro-climate specific to this board.

My thinking is four/five years ago when our 2-3 zone may be the best 2-3 zone defense I've seen in all my years of watching Orange BB it made sense. But the last few years with a 2-3 zone that's not as great as ones previous I've been having blasphemous thoughts again about playing man-to-man defense.

"Not as great" would be an understatement. But as others have said, it's almost a moot point of switching to m2m if they don't practice good m2m.

 

[bozophobe]

Next year is more Boeheim's ideal zone (a dream, really) - that 7'2" guy in the middle. Imagine a sort of second chance after the Fab Melo situation.

 

[FrancoPizza]

There are lot studies on how herds of animals and schools of fish make decisions on which direction to travel. A lot of times it takes just of few of the non-alpha members of the group to start moving in a direction and then the whole group changes direction. .

There will be some changes in direction in a couple years... maybe less. All in good time. But these things must be handled delicately.

 

[FrancoPizza]

Personally, I wish we would switch it up. If the opposition knows what is coming, they can prepare for it.

If the zone is all-world, fine, stay with it. But I liken this to the elite defenses in football. Those defenses typically don't get too fancy and just make you try and beat them straight up. That's kind of how JB embraces the 2-3. In some years, our talent and athleticism is good enough to just say, "try and beat us". But when the personnel is sub-par, it can really backfire... and that's where most of the criticism of JB comes in. Regardless of personnel, he will not change.

 

[FrancoPizza]

Agreed. The size up top [and I'll include Howard / Joseph in that] is going to help offset the lack of size at all three positional units on the back line.

Going to be feast or famine. I haven't seen the exhibitions, so I'm still skeptical that KJ will be a net plus this year.

 

[RF2044]

Going to be feast or famine. I haven't seen the exhibitions, so I'm still skeptical that KJ will be a net plus this year.

He looked much more actively defensively. Kept his arms up, moved his feet, and physically stronger.

KJ is going to play. A ton.

 

[NateW]

Another point to add...

I like that we got some height back at the top of the zone. I'm really hoping Howard can steal some of Cooney's minutes on top of what he'll steal from KJ. That puts two 6'4''+ guys at the top. Tall, lengthy, and athletic is a lethal combo up top and could help mask the issues we will face with Coleman and Obokoh this year.

Howard was quietly solid across the board in those exhibition games. Slick handle, can get to the basket, hit a nice tear drop floater, created some easy buckets for the bigs. We'll have to see how these things translate once we hit some real competition but I gotta say it's nice to finally have some options in the backcourt. We've been thin back there for a few years.

 

[Oakland]

They may not 'work' on MTM but they play it most of the time in practice because that is the D that the O will see in games.

Is there ever a time to play man-to-man instead of the 2-3 zone. The zone does a few things for the team. It allows players with lesser athletic ability play very good defense against superior athletes. It forces teams to attempt and make outside shots. It forces teams to make good passes to players in motion. It also slows the game down so opposing teams with much better shooters get less chances to make baskets. Those are a lot of positives

However, the 2-3 zone has a darker side. If teams are making outside shots we get roasted. If teams are good at making passes to players in motions we get burned. If the Orange are losing the game slowing down the game works in the opponents favor.

A few years ago JB made the proclamation that he came to the realization that practicing man defense was a waste of time and stopped doing it in practice. For at least three years now every single minute of every game has been the 2-3 zone on defense. Another comment JB made was when man-to-man defense breaks down people don't say, "play zone!". So JB concluded just practicing 2-3 zone allows his players to play better 2-3 defense and now the team exclusively plays 2-3 zone.

Many of the older Orange fans here remember the days when JB would occasional switch between and 2-3 zone and man defense based on the game situation. Many times early in the second half JB would play man to shake up the other team. My question for the board is does having the ability to switch to man defense occasionally have any value?

My thinking is four/five years ago when our 2-3 zone may be the best 2-3 zone defense I've seen in all my years of watching Orange BB it made sense. But the last few years with a 2-3 zone that's not as great as ones previous I've been having blasphemous thoughts again about playing man-to-man defense.

 

[Sgt Cuse]

First, as many have said don't hold your breath, at least this year. And I hope Hop doesn't do radical changes.

Just because we won't have an elite zone defense this year doesn't mean they would play good M2M D. Malachi is notoriously bad at M2M and couldn't/wouldn't guard high school level players, Cooney is a better zone fit, and DC2 is undersized in any defense. Defense is not going to be this years specialty.

Also SU is known for its zone. It is starting to reap the benefits of this now, getting elite recruits that fit into the system - MCW, Malachi, and now Battle. Next years team looks like it may have players that fit the system (Mal, 7'2", and Battle) and it could be back to elite levels, we will want the players to have experience in this system.

 

[FrancoPizza]

They may not 'work' on MTM but they play it most of the time in practice because that is the D that the O will see in games.

So they play sh!tty m2m in practice. That's good to know.

 

[FrancoPizza]

Just because we won't have an elite zone defense this year doesn't mean they would play good M2M D.

So because something might not be good, we should just shelve it? Never give it an honest look-over? Honestly it would just need to be serviceable as a change-up... the burden of proof is less in this situation.

In the end it's a moot point until Hop takes over.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Is there ever a time to play man-to-man instead of the 2-3 zone. The zone does a few things for the team. It allows players with lesser athletic ability play very good defense against superior athletes. It forces teams to attempt and make outside shots. It forces teams to make good passes to players in motion. It also slows the game down so opposing teams with much better shooters get less chances to make baskets. Those are a lot of positives

However, the 2-3 zone has a darker side. If teams are making outside shots we get roasted. If teams are good at making passes to players in motions we get burned. If the Orange are losing the game slowing down the game works in the opponents favor.

A few years ago JB made the proclamation that he came to the realization that practicing man defense was a waste of time and stopped doing it in practice. For at least three years now every single minute of every game has been the 2-3 zone on defense. Another comment JB made was when man-to-man defense breaks down people don't say, "play zone!". So JB concluded just practicing 2-3 zone allows his players to play better 2-3 defense and now the team exclusively plays 2-3 zone.

Many of the older Orange fans here remember the days when JB would occasional switch between and 2-3 zone and man defense based on the game situation. Many times early in the second half JB would play man to shake up the other team. My question for the board is does having the ability to switch to man defense occasionally have any value?

My thinking is four/five years ago when our 2-3 zone may be the best 2-3 zone defense I've seen in all my years of watching Orange BB it made sense. But the last few years with a 2-3 zone that's not as great as ones previous I've been having blasphemous thoughts again about playing man-to-man defense.

:bang::bang::bang::bang::bang:

 

[bballbeadle]

Is there ever a time to play man-to-man instead of the 2-3 zone. The zone does a few things for the team. It allows players with lesser athletic ability play very good defense against superior athletes. It forces teams to attempt and make outside shots. It forces teams to make good passes to players in motion. It also slows the game down so opposing teams with much better shooters get less chances to make baskets. Those are a lot of positives

However, the 2-3 zone has a darker side. If teams are making outside shots we get roasted. If teams are good at making passes to players in motions we get burned. If the Orange are losing the game slowing down the game works in the opponents favor.

A few years ago JB made the proclamation that he came to the realization that practicing man defense was a waste of time and stopped doing it in practice. For at least three years now every single minute of every game has been the 2-3 zone on defense. Another comment JB made was when man-to-man defense breaks down people don't say, "play zone!". So JB concluded just practicing 2-3 zone allows his players to play better 2-3 defense and now the team exclusively plays 2-3 zone.

Many of the older Orange fans here remember the days when JB would occasional switch between and 2-3 zone and man defense based on the game situation. Many times early in the second half JB would play man to shake up the other team. My question for the board is does having the ability to switch to man defense occasionally have any value?

My thinking is four/five years ago when our 2-3 zone may be the best 2-3 zone defense I've seen in all my years of watching Orange BB it made sense. But the last few years with a 2-3 zone that's not as great as ones previous I've been having blasphemous thoughts again about playing man-to-man defense.

Dave, you need to get yourself to the confessional, pronto. Doesn't matter if you're not Catholic! That is a nitpicking point. Hopefully, IF you can be absolved by the priest - and your sin is so egregious you may not be - the order of the Universe will be restored and we have chance for a good season.

Sheesh! What were you thinking?

 

[pearl31]

I think we'll see Hop (in a couple of years, after JB retires) switch back and forth, but you'll have to wait until then

 

[Brooky03]

It's funny that a lot of m2m teams (good ones, at that) don't even consider switching to zone at any point in a game but hardly get criticized for it. They're just as guilty as Boeheim of not switching defenses and reaping the alleged merits of it, but avoid the criticism.

 

[billsin01]

Agreed. The size up top [and I'll include Howard / Joseph in that] is going to help offset the lack of size at all three positional units on the back line. Rebounding is going to be a struggle all year long against the big teams. But hopefully our perimeter defenders will make things tougher on the opposition.

I thought the year to play a bunch of man and press was '08-'09 -- the year Flynn and Harris were the key horses. I thought they were deep enough to pressure with KJ/Ongenaet/Onuaku/Jackson up front and Harris/Flynn/Devendorf/Rautins at the guards/wing spots. Even could have gone to mookie if they got in foul trouble and had to get a few minutes from no. 9 in the rotation.

But Flynn was such a dynamic on-ball defender and Harris struggled with focus and size in the zone. Have to feel Harris would have been better and more focused in man. Devendorf was a bit of a liability regardless and Rautins was ideal in the zone but could have hung in man and was so good in the open floor that he would have benefited from the tempo.

Also think it would have benefited the offense as a whole. that was a group that was inconsistent in the half-court. Not bad at all but they just looked a lot more comfortable in transition.

Oh well, hard to argue that you change your entire philosophy for one team.

 

[Forza Azzurri]

Is there ever a time to play man-to-man instead of the 2-3 zone. The zone does a few things for the team. It allows players with lesser athletic ability play very good defense against superior athletes. It forces teams to attempt and make outside shots. It forces teams to make good passes to players in motion. It also slows the game down so opposing teams with much better shooters get less chances to make baskets. Those are a lot of positives

However, the 2-3 zone has a darker side. If teams are making outside shots we get roasted. If teams are good at making passes to players in motions we get burned. If the Orange are losing the game slowing down the game works in the opponents favor.

A few years ago JB made the proclamation that he came to the realization that practicing man defense was a waste of time and stopped doing it in practice. For at least three years now every single minute of every game has been the 2-3 zone on defense. Another comment JB made was when man-to-man defense breaks down people don't say, "play zone!". So JB concluded just practicing 2-3 zone allows his players to play better 2-3 defense and now the team exclusively plays 2-3 zone.

Many of the older Orange fans here remember the days when JB would occasional switch between and 2-3 zone and man defense based on the game situation. Many times early in the second half JB would play man to shake up the other team. My question for the board is does having the ability to switch to man defense occasionally have any value?

My thinking is four/five years ago when our 2-3 zone may be the best 2-3 zone defense I've seen in all my years of watching Orange BB it made sense. But the last few years with a 2-3 zone that's not as great as ones previous I've been having blasphemous thoughts again about playing man-to-man defense.

LOL...All you need to do is start two more threads:

Why doesn't Boeheim go 10 deep?
Why doesn't he schedule like Izzo?

And you'll hit the trifecta...

Those three threads alone can consume the board until Conference play starts...