Notes from last night for our asst coaches to gnaw on

[OrangeFoo]

I love these kinds of posts. "See! If we just did what the champs did, we'd win too!"

There is so much that goes into winning it all. And the zone single-handedly got us to the FF three years ago. Besides JB makes adjustments in the zone in-game, scouts the opponents prior, etc.

If you play defense and offense at an elite level you have a shot. We've already proven that the zone can be devastating when it's right.

I'm going to rebut this for the millionth time. At the end of the day our zone relies on good teams missing wide open shots. I agree that our zone can completely take a bad offensive team out of their game and ensure that they don't get good shots but chances are in the later rounds of the NCAA tournament you are going to face good teams with good coaches who know how to get good shots. So basically this means that once every decade or so we will get to a final four because we will get that miracle draw where we play teams that have no clue against the zone, like 3 years ago. But more often that not we will run into a team that is good enough to get good shots against the zone and hit them. This is why we have so few final four runs. However when you look at Duke you see a program and a coach who will do whatever it takes to win... some times they will play zone sometimes they will play man but not matter what they will adjust to what's going on. This is why you consistently see them in final fours and you don't see us consistently in final fours even though for the past decade we've had the best run of recruiting since the 80s. Duke, Michigan St take the game to the other team and force the issue... we say here is what we are doing try to beat us.

 

[bevosu]

JB on the zone (this was after we beat Indiana in the east regional semi-finals 3/2013)...

"The short history of our zone is we started out as a man-to-man team with some zone and over the years our zone got better, but we still played man,'' Boeheim said. "The problem when you play man, you have to spend an hour on your man defense every day and when you play your preseason games, your non-conference games, if you're playing man your zone isn't getting better.''

Boeheim said he realized that if the Orange was going to play zone, it had to do it all the time.

"So finally it dawned on me,'' said Boeheim, "after about 27 or 28 years, finally, takes me a while, that if we played zone all the time and didn't waste time playing man to man and put some wrinkles in the zone because we had more time to practice it, that our defense would be better.''

There was a side benefit to putting 100 percent effort into the zone.

"You don't have that decision that people are always saying to me, well, why don't you switch to your man-to-man,'' Boeheim said. "Well, you can't switch to something you don't have. They stopped asking that question.''

 

[HoustonCuse]

I'm going to rebut this for the millionth time. At the end of the day our zone relies on good teams missing wide open shots. I agree that our zone can completely take a bad offensive team out of their game and ensure that they don't get good shots but chances are in the later rounds of the NCAA tournament you are going to face good teams with good coaches who know how to get good shots. So basically this means that once every decade or so we will get to a final four because we will get that miracle draw where we play teams that have no clue against the zone, like 3 years ago. But more often that not we will run into a team that is good enough to get good shots against the zone and hit them. This is why we have so few final four runs. However when you look at Duke you see a program and a coach who will do whatever it takes to win... some times they will play zone sometimes they will play man but not matter what they will adjust to what's going on. This is why you consistently see them in final fours and you don't see us consistently in final fours even though for the past decade we've had the best run of recruiting since the 80s. Duke, Michigan St take the game to the other team and force the issue... we say here is what we are doing try to beat us.

There is some truth to this but we have to face that Duke (to use your example) has had far superior talent than we have had, on average. We get good and sometimes great players, but we are significantly below the level of Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, etc in the players we get and the average over time. Is this because we recruit based on faulty requirements (trying to get players suited for the zone)? I'm not really convinced that is true. I think JB has purposefully limited our recruiting footprint and done several other things that have kept our pool of elite candidates smaller than it otherwise could have been. The more lines you have the water, the more bites you are likely to get. Thomas Bryant is a great example. Indiana basically fell ass backwards into getting that kid due to a whirlwind of unlikely factors - but they would have never gotten him if they said: "we don't recruit NYS."

Back to the point: Duke's most talented teams are more talented than our most talented teams and their average teams are also more talented than our average teams. Hell, their average team is possibly on par with some of our best, raw talent wise. Yet they still have failures in the tournament so it is not like there is some key coaching mantra that is bulletproof. Kentucky is exhibit A, they have only cashed the best recruiting run in history into one championship. No single factor determines this, but raw talent is probably the most important factor. Combined with outstanding coaching and you get Duke.

 

[FrancoPizza]

I'm going to rebut this for the millionth time. At the end of the day our zone relies on good teams missing wide open shots. .

The zone actually puts a greater dependency on offensive efficiency, esp in the half court. A balanced offense can stem the tide when the other team is making those "contested" shots. Zone is also more effective when you have a lead and the opponent can't play stall ball.

Once you're into the second weekend youre not going to get 20 fast break points to bail out a dysfunctional halfcourt offense. What makes this worse is we can't even get fast breaks against the sisters of the poor these days.

 

[igor]

1) Hack , hack ... Hakim
2) Cough, cough ... Gerry, Andy
3) See 1 and 2a

)

hakim was a 2 star; Gerry 3. how did their pro careers go

 

[jekelish]

hakim was a 2 star; Gerry 3. how did their pro careers go

Hakim was a 1st Team All-American by his senior year. Gerry was a 1st Team All-Big East by his senior year.

What does their star rating or pro performance have to do with how good they were as collegians?

 

[Madbiker]

JB's system works. We have won a championship. We would have 2 if we made a lousy couple of free throws late in 1987. We have 4 FF appearances. I used to think the flaw was the passive zone like others here but changed my mind on it after 2003. You just have to have the right talent (high end talent) to make it work. SU just doesn't have that kind of talent consistently. The stars align once in a while. If we had talent like Duke, SU would be in the elite 8 or FF a lot more often. You have to honestly assess the talent level we have most years without bias.

 

[igor]

JB's system works. We have won a championship. We would have 2 if we made a lousy couple of free throws late in 1987. We have 4 FF appearances. I used to think the flaw was the passive zone like others here but changed my mind on it after 2003. You just have to have the right talent (high end talent) to make it work. SU just doesn't have that kind of talent consistently. The stars align once in a while. If we had talent like Duke, SU would be in the elite 8 or FF a lot more often. You have to honestly assess the talent level we have most years without bias.

how about had they been sanctioned twice they have won only once or without melo maybe not at all

 

[SBU72]

You didn't mention that they also have at least 4 good outside shooters. Usually, 3 on the court at any time.

agree.

 

[Brooky03]

I don't like that our zone gets called a 2-3 zone. It's not, and it makes it sound as if our guys just chill and wait for somebody to get in their area.

We can crank up the ball pressure significantly when we need to, we can extend well beyond the 3pt line and still be effective, we can double team on the pass and the catch, we can hedge hard on screens, etc. Our zone does everything a good m2m defense does, and it's often m2m about 15 seconds into the shot clock anyway. When we have the personnel, like MCW's season, it's deadly, even for well coached and talented teams. If we had any semblance of an offense that season, we might have another banner hanging.

 

[SBU72]

Thomas Bryant is a great example. Indiana basically fell ass backwards into getting that kid due to a whirlwind of unlikely factors - but they would have never gotten him if they said: "we don't recruit NYS."

In all the debate about Thomas, people forget that has not been a "New York" state kid for 2 years! He plays ball for Huntington Prep in West Virginia. So it was not like any of the coaches could drive over to Rochester twice a week to watch his games. As soon as he went to Huntington, it opened up his recruitment to a whole lot more schools.
Also, the Duke Roster ranges so far, Tx, DC, Fl, Mn, NC, Ma, Il, and PA. Doesn't sound like a vastly larger area than SU (Tn, Va, In, NY, NH, NJ, PA.)

 

[AlaskaSU]

I'm going to rebut this for the millionth time. At the end of the day our zone relies on good teams missing wide open shots. I agree that our zone can completely take a bad offensive team out of their game and ensure that they don't get good shots but chances are in the later rounds of the NCAA tournament you are going to face good teams with good coaches who know how to get good shots. So basically this means that once every decade or so we will get to a final four because we will get that miracle draw where we play teams that have no clue against the zone, like 3 years ago. But more often that not we will run into a team that is good enough to get good shots against the zone and hit them. This is why we have so few final four runs. However when you look at Duke you see a program and a coach who will do whatever it takes to win... some times they will play zone sometimes they will play man but not matter what they will adjust to what's going on. This is why you consistently see them in final fours and you don't see us consistently in final fours even though for the past decade we've had the best run of recruiting since the 80s. Duke, Michigan St take the game to the other team and force the issue... we say here is what we are doing try to beat us.

This is the first year that Duke has ever used zone.

 

[HoustonCuse]

In all the debate about Thomas, people forget that has not been a "New York" state kid for 2 years! He plays ball for Huntington Prep in West Virginia. So it was not like any of the coaches could drive over to Rochester twice a week to watch his games. As soon as he went to Huntington, it opened up his recruitment to a whole lot more schools.
Also, the Duke Roster ranges so far, Tx, DC, Fl, Mn, NC, Ma, Il, and PA. Doesn't sound like a vastly larger area than SU (Tn, Va, In, NY, NH, NJ, PA.)

My point stands though, Duke generally has more talent than we do. And part of that could be because, among other things, JB has limited his recruiting geography substantially. Duke clearly recruits nationally so I don't accept the idea that our recruiting zone is equivalent to theirs. It isn't. (Who is from Tennessee by the way, I can't think of who is from there, plus also you left off Delaware for us).

 

[tbonezone]

duke plays tough in your face MTM and then slips into zone to help hide someone in foul trouble. just like we used to before the zone obsession.

 

[Cuse Action]

Coach K is the best coach in the country. Bias aside, I strongly believe it.

And, brace yourselves here people, he mixed up his defense into zone when he needed to adjust to the foul situation and direction the game was going.

I wonder how many titles we would have won had he been coaching SU the last 35 years?

 

[cto]

Picture with Coach K from the victory party... Oooops... wrong victory party. This is from the Gold Medal victory party at the London Olympics in 2012. (Been waiting for three years for an excuse to post it).

 

[kuethstheman]

I'm Not sure JB's way is the right way but I definitely don't buy the usual complaint about zones, that they give up too many threes. I see a lot of sharpshooters building their reputation against m2m (see G. McNamara, national title game, 2003). It comes down to how much the defense needs to help. M2m or zone, if you sag into the lane, you give up spot-up threes. In M2m if you want to "impose your will", you need a lock-down defender on every one of the other team's scorers. Great strategy but to beat the best teams, you have to have Excellent defenders at every position (or hope they miss when you help). It's about the talent.

I used to hate the zone. I thought it wasn't possible for it to be a weapon. Then for a few years it was. A huge weapon. My only remaining complaint is that most years, it's not that great so maybe it's too hard to play, even when you go overboard recruiting for it. Even so, there's no reason to think that with the talent we've been getting, we'd be any better playing m2m.

 

[pearl31]

how about had they been sanctioned twice they have won only once or without melo maybe not at all

Go back under your rock. Please.

 

[kirbivore]

hakim was a 2 star; Gerry 3. how did their pro careers go

Hak played 8 years in the NBA and made 21.2 million. I think he did just fine.

 

[SBU72]

My point stands though, Duke generally has more talent than we do. And part of that could be because, among other things, JB has limited his recruiting geography substantially. Duke clearly recruits nationally so I don't accept the idea that our recruiting zone is equivalent to theirs. It isn't. (Who is from Tennessee by the way, I can't think of who is from there, plus also you left off Delaware for us).

Sorry, the kid from TN is a walk on. My Mistake. But by looking where kids are from, It does not appear to me that there is a significant difference where the two schools recruit. Yeah Duke has recruits from TX, FL and MN but do you see anybody from NYC? Nobody farther north than Philly. So how can you say Duke is nations versus SU? SU has NYC, NH and Delaware. Duke isn't in one of the most fertile areas in the country. And how you can be so sure JB has limited his recruiting area?

 

[pfister1]

Sorry, the kid from TN is a walk on. My Mistake. But by looking where kids are from, It does not appear to me that there is a significant difference where the two schools recruit. Yeah Duke has recruits from TX, FL and MN but do you see anybody from NYC? Nobody farther north than Philly. So how can you say Duke is nations versus SU? SU has NYC, NH and Delaware. Duke isn't in one of the most fertile areas in the country. And how you can be so sure JB has limited his recruiting area?

You have to look beyond just this year. I don't think Duke recruits players from anywhere in particular. I think they select players and then go get them. Duke has recruited McDonald's All Americans from TX, FL, IL, MN, PA, VA, NC, NJ, TN, CA, OR, IN, NY and DE since 2005. Those are the cream of the crop players and they are able to pull them in from 14 states over the last 10 years. I think that shows they can go anywhere they want and recruit. Looking back even further they've had them from AK, MD, NM, LA.

Since 2005 ours have come from six states NY, PA, RI, FL, MD & MI. Since the beginning of time, in addition to the states mentioned, we've also had one from CA.

I think our recruiting is limited to our region along with a couple of additional sweet spots and the occasional outlier.

It's funny we compare NCAA tournament results and lament that our results aren't as good as some. When you throw in the difference in caliber of recruits, is it a mystery as to why our NCAA results don't keep up with Duke and Kentucky? Are K and Calipari great coaches because they are able to win with superior talent or are JB and others superior because they do more with less.

McDonald's All Americans since 2000 (Nat. Championships in parenthesis)
33 Duke (3 - 2001, 2010 & 2015)
30 UNC ( 2- 2005 & 2009)
25 Kentucky (1- 2012)
17 Kansas (1 - 2008)
14 Texas
13 UCLA
12 Ohio State
11 Florida (2 - 2006 & 2007)
10 Arizona
9 Michigan State (1 - 2000)
9 NC State
8 Syracuse (1 - 2003)
8 Indiana
8 Memphis

6 UConn (3 - 2004, 2011 & 2014)
3 Maryland (1 - 2002)
6 Louisville (1 - 2013)

@ I used 2000 as the breakpoint because the McDonalds stats I saw grouped them that way. It also did not include any 2015 recruits in the numbers.

 

[SBU72]

You have to look beyond just this year. I don't think Duke recruits players from anywhere in particular. I think they select players and then go get them. Duke has recruited McDonald's All Americans from TX, FL, IL, MN, PA, VA, NC, NJ, TN, CA, OR, IN, NY and DE since 2005. Those are the cream of the crop players and they are able to pull them in from 14 states over the last 10 years. I think that shows they can go anywhere they want and recruit. Looking back even further they've had them from AK, MD, NM, LA.

Since 2005 ours have come from six states NY, PA, RI, FL, MD & MI. Since the beginning of time, in addition to the states mentioned, we've also had one from CA.

I think our recruiting is limited to our region along with a couple of additional sweet spots and the occasional outlier.

The telling point is McD's AA, not the region. I would bet that 75% of there recruiting targets are those kids. SU's are not. And the reason why they recruit them is THEY CAN GET THEM. Count the number of AA's Duke had in your time frame and how many SU has had. If SU targeted 75% only AA's they would come away with very slim pickings. And just because SU doesn't get certain kids, doesn't mean they did not recruit them.

 

[OrangeFoo]

interesting that Izzo's name has not come up. He doesn't seem to recruit that much better than us but his teams always peak at the end of the year. What's interesting is he plays strictly man to man and almost no zone. In a way he is the anti-JB. I still argue it's because the zone will give up more wide open shots against good teams than man so we are more likely to get beat by an inferior team who can execute.

 

[Dave85]

It was fun basketball to watch. I used to hate Duke based solely on the immature/childish jealousy thing that so many sports fans (myself inlcuded) suffer from. I became a big fan of Coach K after watching him clean up the debacle that was US basketball under Larry Brown. The dude can flatout coach.

I like the coach. I just hate the a hole fans.

 

[Dave85]

interesting that Izzo's name has not come up. He doesn't seem to recruit that much better than us but his teams always peak at the end of the year. What's interesting is he plays strictly man to man and almost no zone. In a way he is the anti-JB. I still argue it's because the zone will give up more wide open shots against good teams than man so we are more likely to get beat by an inferior team who can execute.

JB once said when a man-to-man team gets scored on no one yells out "go zone". And it's a good point. However, just like when we press on the inbound, JB needs to think playing man-to-man is like pressing the offense on visitors side of the court. During our sencond Duke game they ran 4 minutes off the clock because no one came out of the zone. Five minutes into the second half playing man-to-man would have really disrupted their offense patterns. JB used to do this in the 90s and early 00's. But his only practice zone philosophy has resulted in 100% only playing 2-3 zone for 3 or 4 years now. I'm mixed about it. When we are winning I don't care. When we are losing I think about it.

Regardless, our problems the last few years have on the offensive end of the court. Just one of these years I would like to have one player who consistently shoots 40% from three.