Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Dave85, post: 1806007, member: 3946"] There are trade-offs in every design decision. I think the 2-3 zone allows our team to beat teams with superior talent who would beat us if we were playing M2M. We may lose some games earlier in the season as the defense improves. But come tournament time and JB's overall record the 2-3 team defense has been very successful. For whatever reasons, the last couple of years our teams have not had very good transition offense. JB thinks this is about to change. We have a good anchors in the zone and really fast guards up top. A fast break basket off a defensive steal is huge plus for playing the 2-3 zone. I think it is one of the best and most exciting things to see watching Orange basketball. The other thing that's nice about the 2-3 zone is when teams are in transition on us. Our players don't to think about there their M2M assignment is on the court. All our players have to do is run with all their might to a position. I think this helps prevent transition baskets because of missed assignment. I think the reason why we lose to Pitt and Louisville has to do with their coaches playing against our 2-3 zone for so many years. They practice specific sets of motion plays to beat our zone. That's always a problem. In the past, when teams start playing good motion offense against our team I've seen our team step up the defensive pressure. Playing the 2-3 zone at its highest level takes really smart basketball players but also a huge amount of conditioning. It's really funny the 2-3 zone and Orange basketball. When I watch any CBB it just seems wrong when the team going on defense doesn't play the 2-3 zone. And I think Orange basketball has another dimension to its attraction because a lot of times I find myself rooting for the defense to succeed just as much as the offense. I guess that's true with M2M defense. But it seems different when watching the 2-3 execute. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?