More options than 2/3 zone?

[Caboose]

This has probably been debated ad nauseam in these forums I'm sure. I got into a debate today w a fellow fan. He thinks we should never switch to man to man no matter what the situation is. He says Boeheim does enough "adjustments" within the 2/3 zone to not necessitate man to man, ever.

I completely disagree on the claim that we should never have man to man as an option. Don't get me wrong, the reason the team has won these two games is because of the zone defense. It has been stellar, but I'm of the belief that we should at times switch it up when the zone is getting absolutely destroyed. Did we need to do anything differently than what we saw against ASU and TCU? No, the zone worked to perfection and I loved it. However, this guy thinks we should never switch no matter what. Isn't that way of thinking closed-minded and moronic? How about a poll.

 

[jdubs30]

I think this is a wonderful thread for September.

But an hour and a half before our biggest game of the season?

 

[Caboose]

I think this is a wonderful thread for September.

But an hour and a half before our biggest game of the season?

Yes it's on a thread in imaginary cyberspace. Not in your living room. Won't hurt you.

 

[twinight]

Isn't that way of thinking closed-minded and moronic?

No. I'd say it's probably more moronic to suggest switching to a defense you spend little to no time practicing.

Ah, you say, then we should spend more time practicing it.

Okay, sure, but there's a cost to everything. You're taking away time from practicing your primary defense to switch to one you're only going to use when the zone is getting "absolutely destroyed" i.e., infrequently. So now your zone is going to get a little worse because you're practicing it less. Now it gets "destroyed" a little more often so you need to practice M2M more. Which takes more time away from the zone, making it a little more worse. And the cycle continues.

When the zone isn't working, you should switch up the action of the zone. Which is what we do.

Sometimes a team still lights it up. They may get lucky. They may just be better. That's okay. That's going to happen even with a great defense (which is what we have).

 

[two3zone]

No. I'd say it's probably more moronic to suggest switching to a defense you spend little to no time practicing.

Ah, you say, then we should spend more time practicing it.

Okay, sure, but there's a cost to everything. You're taking away time from practicing your primary defense to switch to one you're only going to use when the zone is getting "absolutely destroyed" i.e., infrequently. So now your zone is going to get a little worse because you're practicing it less. Now it gets "destroyed" a little more often so you need to practice M2M more. Which takes more time away from the zone, making it a little more worse. And the cycle continues.

When the zone isn't working, you should switch up the action of the zone. Which is what we do.

Sometimes a team still lights it up. They may get lucky. They may just be better. That's okay. That's going to happen even with a great defense (which is what we have).

If we don't practice man then what does our offense practice against?

 

[twinight]

If we don't practice man then what does our offense practice against?

Are you asking this question seriously? Or are you doing a Charles Barkley impression?

Our offense practices against the bench/walk-ons.

 

[Arangeman]

Someone wake up Townie!!!

 

[Townie72]

If we don't practice man then what does our offense practice against?

You are perhaps aware of the concept of a “first team” and a “second team” which is composed of primarily walk ones.

This second team is the one the first team practices against and that’s who is playing M2M in practice.

Sometimes I wonder ...

 

[Townie72]

Are you asking this question seriously? Or are you doing a Charles Barkley impression?

Our offense practices against the bench/walk-ons.

But Charles is just faking it.

 

[Caboose]

No. I'd say it's probably more moronic to suggest switching to a defense you spend little to no time practicing.

Ah, you say, then we should spend more time practicing it.

Okay, sure, but there's a cost to everything. You're taking away time from practicing your primary defense to switch to one you're only going to use when the zone is getting "absolutely destroyed" i.e., infrequently. So now your zone is going to get a little worse because you're practicing it less. Now it gets "destroyed" a little more often so you need to practice M2M more. Which takes more time away from the zone, making it a little more worse. And the cycle continues.

When the zone isn't working, you should switch up the action of the zone. Which is what we do.

Sometimes a team still lights it up. They may get lucky. They may just be better. That's okay. That's going to happen even with a great defense (which is what we have).

So by your logic if you spend any time at all on man, then the zone irreparably suffers? Are these kids that forgetful and stupid?

 

[Ajflood12]

If we don't practice man then what does our offense practice against?

Judging by the season we don’t really practice offense. We can’t score on zone or m2m

 

[Bayside44]

If we don't practice man then what does our offense practice against?

This year walk-ons.

Considering we held the last 2 teams we played to 20 points under their average it's an odd question.

I mean, we never square up Pascal from 15, aren't we due???

 

[Caboose]

No. I'd say it's probably more moronic to suggest switching to a defense you spend little to no time practicing.

Who's fault is that?

 

[twinight]

Who's fault is that?

Perhaps read my full response, ding-dong.

 

[Caboose]

This year walk-ons.

Considering we held the last 2 teams we played to 20 points under their average it's an odd question.

I mean, we never square up Pascal from 15, aren't we due???

Even after I applaud the job they did against the last two opponents I expected this response. Let me hold your hand. Did you see the BC game? Nothing zone-related had any effect on them. Would it have hurt to switch to man in that game, or is it best to think like Boeheim when he says they can't shoot like that forever? Well BC did shoot that way "forever" that day.

I'm just saying why is it so painful to try something that may help in that particular situation?

 

[twinight]

Even after I applaud the job they did against the last two opponents I expected this response. Let me hold your hand. Did you see the BC game? Nothing zone-related had any effect on them. Would it have hurt to switch to man in that game, or is it best to think like Boeheim when he says they can't shoot like that forever? Well BC did shoot that way "forever" that day.

I'm just saying why is it so painful to try something that may help in that particular situation?

Why not play the walk-ons when the starting five aren't getting anything done?

 

[Caboose]

Perhaps read my full response, ding-dong.

I did, and it contained nothing but utter stupidity. I think you underestimate the intelligence of these kids who play the game. I think you also forget that these kids have played man their entire lives before coming here. It's not ticket rocket science, and spending an hour a day on keeping more than one tool in your tool box doesn't hurt you. In a one and done tournament, banking on the probability that someone won't light you up and having only one option in your arsenal is pretty darn stupid if you ask me.

 

[Caboose]

Why not play the walk-ons when the starting five aren't getting anything done?

Why not play the walk ons and have them play zone, by your genius logic? Since you spend all your time practicing zone right? I mean the starters aren't getting it done w the zone right?

 

[NorSyr66]

Come on folks, are we really serious about this? We are a lot further than most folks would imagine this year and we are trying to debate this age old, completely exhausted question.

Lets focus on MIch St. LETS GO ORANGE!!

 

[twinight]

I did, and it contained nothing but utter stupidity. I think you underestimate the intelligence of these kids who play the game. I think you also forget that these kids have played man their entire lives before coming here. It's not ticket rocket science, and spending an hour a day on keeping more than one tool in your tool box doesn't hurt you. In a one and done tournament, banking on the probability that someone won't light you up and having only one option in your arsenal is pretty darn stupid if you ask me.

No, you didn't read it, because you presented the same tired argument I addressed in my original response. You're a dullard who is terrible at debating.

 

[twinight]

Why not play the walk ons and have them play zone, by your genius logic? Since you spend all your time practicing zone right? I mean the starters aren't getting it done w the zone right?

You're legitimately braindead.

 

[newmexicuse]

This has probably been debated ad nauseam in these forums I'm sure. I got into a debate today w a fellow fan. He thinks we should never switch to man to man no matter what the situation is. He says Boeheim does enough "adjustments" within the 2/3 zone to not necessitate man to man, ever.

I completely disagree on the claim that we should never have man to man as an option. Don't get me wrong, the reason the team has won these two games is because of the zone defense. It has been stellar, but I'm of the belief that we should at times switch it up when the zone is getting absolutely destroyed. Did we need to do anything differently than what we saw against ASU and TCU? No, the zone worked to perfection and I loved it. However, this guy thinks we should never switch no matter what. Isn't that way of thinking closed-minded and moronic? How about a poll.

Well during our glorious shining moment season, that season was saved by timely switching from the Zone to M2M, which enabled us to snatch victory from defeat a couple of times.

What, I do not understand is why a coach, whose greatest glory came when he showed flexibility, is now totally inflexible on this topic no matter what.

 

[Caboose]

You're legitimately braindead.

Your idiotic argument deserved the sarcastic response but your dullard brain lacked the iq points to detect said sarcasm. You're hilarious dude. Keep responding with your lunacy.

 

[Caboose]

Well during our glorious shining moment season, that season was saved by timely switching from the Zone to M2M, which enabled us to snatch victory from defeat a couple of times.

What, I do not understand is why a coach, whose greatest glory came when he showed flexibility, is now totally inflexible on this topic no matter what.

I haven't seen it this year, and all I'm saying is it's not a good idea. Some of the Boeheim protectors would come out and overly defend him on this topic. I'm saying it now. I'm a Boeheim defender btw. I just want to see a better approach against teams who are lighting us up. Duke is a much more dangerous team now that they are multi dimensional on defense. We are not so much.

 

[Caboose]

Come on folks, are we really serious about this? We are a lot further than most folks would imagine this year and we are trying to debate this age old, completely exhausted question.

Lets focus on MIch St. LETS GO ORANGE!!

Couldn't agree more but just wanted to see what ppl thought about this after discussing it with a friend this morning. I'm all about the game today, trust me.