NBA and the zone defense

[billsin01]

We hear a lot, especially from those who blame the zone for all of our woes, that the fact we play zone is used against us in recruiting. I'm not disputing this assertion -- I wouldn't know but it certainly seems logical. But I've been watching more NBA lately b/c my son is a huge steph curry fan (I hadn't watched since the jordan/ewing and bulls/jazz battles of the mid-90s or so).

What's interesting to me about this is that most NBA teams now switch on everything and the teams that play good defense are the teams that not only slide but slide as teams. In other words, someone is helping on ball, and the other defenders are accounting for the slide by re-positioning themselves to account for the guy who slid.

All this to say, NBA defenses look a lot more like zone, than man. Sure, you have some clay thompsons and patrick beverelys who get into the ball handler and do some yeoman's work on their own, but for the most part, the guys you'd be looking for as a head coach are guys who play good defense within a team concept. I really think the zone ultimately could end up creating really solid defenders at the next level.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

I kinda think the 'switch on everything' model works in the NBA because everyone at that level is strong/physical/big/quick enough to be versatile in who they guard. I don't know if that will eventually help us.

Re whether our zone is a detriment as far as other teams using it as a negative... I can say that if I were recruiting against Syracuse, I would be using it. Absolutely. I'd say it outright, and I'd plant a few other 'seeds' to mull.

 

[Funk Doc]

I think you both are correct. The NBA does switch everything, and they do that because they have the athletes to do so. When Cuse is recruiting our "type" of guys, we are usually grabbing long athletes, who with some hustle, should be at the very least, adequate man defenders in the NBA. Other teams probably do, and should try and use it against us, but my hope is that these kids are smart enough to know that unless they are unhappy and won't enjoy playing zone, that it shouldn't really affect their draft stock.

On a side note. Nova pretty much switches everything defensively, and they seem to do alright with it. So I guess it is possible in college. Gotta have the players willing to bust their butts on defense and on the glass!

 

[Brooky03]

The only players who scouts might think twice about due to playing in the zone are centers. Fab Melo being a prime example. Centers in the NBA don't just hang out in the paint anymore, so you need a guy who can guard them in the paint and away from the basket. Fab was a dominant defensive center in college because he parked his big booty near the rim and swatted everything he could reach. He'd be fine in the old NBA, but he couldn't cut it in the current NBA because he couldn't guard anybody more than 8 feet from the hoop. Our centers sometimes have to rotate all the way out to a shooter in the corner, but they don't actually play m2m that far out, so it doesn't help or show much. I think the scouts have a legitimate gripe when it comes to centers.

But NBA scouts have zero argument when it comes to the other 4 positions. None. They're clowns who should be out of a job if they discount a PG-PF because they played a matchup zone in college. On any given possession, the guys at PG-PF are playing m2m 75% of the time; that's what the matchup zone does. The only difference between the zone and m2m is that they don't have to chase guys through screens very often. Well, as OP pointed out, guys in the NBA don't chase their assignment through screens all that often (on and off the ball) either.

 

[Alsacs]

NBA teams can’t play zone for an extended amount of time.
The shooting in the league is too good.
Teams can throw a gimmick zone D at an opponent to confuse them or try and get a stop.
However any NBA team that played for even an entire quarter would be torched.

Zone works in college because most teams have multiple non offensive threats at all time and college coaching sucks compared to pro coaching.

 

[NineOneSeven]

NBA teams can’t play zone for an extended amount of time.
The shooting in the league is too good.
Teams can throw a gimmick zone D at an opponent to confuse them or try and get a stop.
However any NBA team that played for even an entire quarter would be torched.

Zone works in college because most teams have multiple non offensive threats at all time and college coaching sucks compared to pro coaching.

There is also a defensive 3 seconds.

The notion by the ignorant that the NBA does not have defense is hilarious (and I used to be that guy who made comments about the defense before I really understood the intricacies).

 

[billsin01]

Re whether our zone is a detriment as far as other teams using it as a negative... I can say that if I were recruiting against Syracuse, I would be using it. Absolutely. I'd say it outright, and I'd plant a few other 'seeds' to mull.

Oh, I'm in total agreement that it is not only likely to be used against us, but that it is probably a pretty good strategy for opponents. my point was more that if you watch NBA man-to-man, it's as much about slides, hedging and help as it is about manning an individual offensive player up and trying to force them into a bad shot single-handedly. So the zone, if played correctly, should still teach many of those key team defensive attributes and while it's perhaps not the ideal breeding ground for big-time nba defenders, it shouldn't be viewed as a huge negative ... at least by the staff. I would be grabbing film of NBA teams defending pick and rolls and sliding multiple times in defense sequences and be telling recruits -- this is all stuff you're doing here in a zone. Whether that sinks in for every recruit? That's debatable. Whether other teams are going to stop pushing the 'zone wont' prep you for the nba' stuff? That's unlikely. But I think this staff can make the case to these kids that in addition to playing in a great venue for a great program and potentially having a chance to make a deep run in march, they could potentially move on to the next level decently prepared on both ends of the floor.

 

[billsin01]

NBA teams can’t play zone for an extended amount of time.
The shooting in the league is too good.
Teams can throw a gimmick zone D at an opponent to confuse them or try and get a stop.
However any NBA team that played for even an entire quarter would be torched.

Zone works in college because most teams have multiple non offensive threats at all time and college coaching sucks compared to pro coaching.

So is this a response to my original post? Because I don't think I insinuated that NBA teams play zone. Or at least I didn't mean to. My point was that when you watch NBA teams play man -- it's not dudes fighting through screens and each guy getting a man and only switching when that player gets beat. it's a ton of hedging and doubling and secondary and tertiary sliding. Was just watching the Lakers/Wiz tonight and LA on defense played a wizards pick and roll by having the guard go under the screen and having the man on the opposite wing commit just enough to force the pass and then recover to his man on the outside. Looked exactly like the way our two guards operate at the top of our zone.

On another play an LA guard drove baseline and the Wiz had all four other defenders react by flattening out along the baseline and then pushing back out on shooters once he kicked the ball out.

It's just interesting that while it's still very much man-to-man, how much all of these teams need to rely on rotations and help. The best defenders are often the guys who can guard multiple positions on the floor, but a close second are the guys who excel at disrupting passing lanes and quickly reacting to the offensive actions.

Just food for thought.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

So is this a response to my original post? Because I don't think I insinuated that NBA teams play zone. Or at least I didn't mean to. My point was that when you watch NBA teams play man -- it's not dudes fighting through screens and each guy getting a man and only switching when that player gets beat. it's a ton of hedging and doubling and secondary and tertiary sliding. Was just watching the Lakers/Wiz tonight and LA on defense played a wizards pick and roll by having the guard go under the screen and having the man on the opposite wing commit just enough to force the pass and then recover to his man on the outside. Looked exactly like the way our two guards operate at the top of our zone.

On another play an LA guard drove baseline and the Wiz had all four other defenders react by flattening out along the baseline and then pushing back out on shooters once he kicked the ball out.

It's just interesting that while it's still very much man-to-man, how much all of these teams need to rely on rotations and help. The best defenders are often the guys who can guard multiple positions on the floor, but a close second are the guys who excel at disrupting passing lanes and quickly reacting to the offensive actions.

Just food for thought.

Our staff should probably try to sell it that way, but I fear it would still come across as 'spin.'

 

[STEVEHOLT]

The only players who scouts might think twice about due to playing in the zone are centers. Fab Melo being a prime example. Centers in the NBA don't just hang out in the paint anymore, so you need a guy who can guard them in the paint and away from the basket. Fab was a dominant defensive center in college because he parked his big booty near the rim and swatted everything he could reach. He'd be fine in the old NBA, but he couldn't cut it in the current NBA because he couldn't guard anybody more than 8 feet from the hoop. Our centers sometimes have to rotate all the way out to a shooter in the corner, but they don't actually play m2m that far out, so it doesn't help or show much. I think the scouts have a legitimate gripe when it comes to centers.

But NBA scouts have zero argument when it comes to the other 4 positions. None. They're clowns who should be out of a job if they discount a PG-PF because they played a matchup zone in college. On any given possession, the guys at PG-PF are playing m2m 75% of the time; that's what the matchup zone does. The only difference between the zone and m2m is that they don't have to chase guys through screens very often. Well, as OP pointed out, guys in the NBA don't chase their assignment through screens all that often (on and off the ball) either.

I don't think they outright discount a player just because they played in a zone. I think they have the ability to evaluate a player's ability in the zone D and then extrapolate it to how effective / ineffective it may be in a man scheme. Does anyone think that by looking at Brandon Triche's or Trevor Cooney's steal rates they can tell how good they would be at ball hawking in the NBA?

 

[Janner]

Yeah I never really bought into the "zone hurts your stock" concept. I mean these kids grow up learning to play strictly man-to-man defense in the streets/parks, then in middle school, then at any camps they attend, then in High School and finally in AAU ball. They come to Syracuse for a year or two and what? They forget everything they learned and practiced for the first 17 years of their life?

As billsin01 points out, I think it could be argued given the way that the NBA switches and plays help defense, that a couple years of zone could defiantly help to better prepare a prospect for the pros. Man-to-man defense is based on athletic ability, size, heart, and intelligence (slightly generalized). By playing the zone for couple years your not going to lose any of the first three and you would think it would help improve your knowledge/intelligence of the sport.

Now does Syracuse recruit players that might fit a zone scheme better? Sure, for the most part. But if a LeBron James type player chose Syracuse its not going to make him a worse man-to-man defender.

 

[FrancoPizza]

Zone works in college because most teams have multiple non offensive threats at all time.

Maybe back in the day, but times are changing. Coaches in the ACC also generally know how to run zone offenses.

 

[Knicks411]

I don't think necessarily that you "forget" how to play man to man in college if you're playing zone, but i would say 2 things

1) Playing man to man against high school players isn't the same as playing it against college players, and not the same as playing it against nba players. The level of competition goes up.
2) Even if you don't "forget" how to play man, scouts just don't get to see you playing it as much. That could hurt your draft stock, even if it doesn't hurt your actual ability to play man to man (though I think it probably does a little, due to point 1)

 

[Janner]

I don't think necessarily that you "forget" how to play man to man in college if you're playing zone, but i would say 2 things

1) Playing man to man against high school players isn't the same as playing it against college players, and not the same as playing it against nba players. The level of competition goes up.
2) Even if you don't "forget" how to play man, scouts just don't get to see you playing it as much. That could hurt your draft stock, even if it doesn't hurt your actual ability to play man to man (though I think it probably does a little, due to point 1)

I get that and im not totally disagreeing with those points but I believe its quite a bit overblown. Playing man-to-man in high school isn't like playing it in college, but I would argue that playing it in high level AAU ball is not far off at all, and the vast majority of our players play at the highest level of AAU ball. Scouts have tape on them at this stage. What would be more important to me would be the physical development over the kids first few years in college (might be why im not a scout lol). There are going to be adjustments moving to the next level regardless I guess is my point. I just don't believe the gap is as big as they make it out to be, especially if a kid is an elite level talent. JMHO