More options than 2/3 zone?

[realorange]

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.

Well let's leave it with the game today and take up your argument next summer.

 

[Bayside44]

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?

No hand holding needed. We're gonna lose games. In the BC game you're now asking for tight man 25 feet from the goal. BC beat Duke on that same floor.

We shot 38% and had 15 turnovers. Bad stats.

 

[Townie72]

Well let's leave it with the game today and take up your argument next summer.

Or he can read the hundreds of posts on here on the subject as pre-read.

 

[OrangeDW]

Checks date on post...umm, ok.

This one has been debated to death and short of an NC will continue to be. A few related thoughts...

1. I never hear the strictly man to man 100% of the time coaches criticized for not switching to zones. In fact, I hear them applauded like playing all man to man is some basketball meathead toughness badge of honor.

2. Some of the formerly all man to man coaches who were applauded for it like Coach K and Izzo, have played more zone in recent years.

Just a few things I find interesting as far as how people view this stuff.

As for Syracuse, it’s Boeheim’s show and I trust that he knows what’s best for him and his program.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

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 ...

In my observations, the teams are pretty well split up in practice during most of the time.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

If this was a non-agenda driven poll, it would be whether a team should play one defense, exclusively, or should switch defenses.

 

[FrancoPizza]

Better poll question is do you think we should try spending more time coming up with an offensive scheme that doesn’t rely on a chukwu high ball screen.

We all want some more flexibility on D but there are far bigger issues on the other side of the ball.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

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.

No. You either believe in your defense or you don’t. Should we have switched to man after ASU and TCU started hitting 3’s? Man to man gives up 3’s as well. Then what? Man is also harder to play. Stick with our zone. It works and has been great all season, with the exception of a few game, like every other defense. Virginia has the best defense all season and got lit up the other night. It happens.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

We all want some more flexibility on D...

No, we don't. This tournament showssthose not to blind to see why JB goes only zone. Teams can't prep for it in the tournament.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

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.

Want to switch to man to man today at all?

 

[Caboose]

Want to switch to man to man today at all?

Absolutely not. Situation didn't call for it. Wooooo!

 

[Lucid]

Don't get me wrong, the reason the team has won these two games is because of the zone defense.

Excuse me. It's 3 games now.

 

[FrancoPizza]

No, we don't. This tournament showssthose not to blind to see why JB goes only zone. Teams can't prep for it in the tournament.

Situation didn’t call for it today. Nice straw man.

 

[Caboose]

Excuse me. It's 3 games now.

Thanks captain obvious.

 

[Caboose]

Situation didn’t call for it today. Nice straw man.

That doesn't fit the definition of a straw man argument but nice try. I bet you'll stomp your feet now and say "I'm a bigger fan than you though!"