Our defense lost the game

[NineOneSeven]

"But our defense is what got us back into it!"

No, our press is what got us back into it. Our defense is the zone, and that is the biggest reason we lost the game, imo. Turnovers obviously hurt us badly down the stretch (shocking), but playing zone against Pittburgh is like playing soft prevent defense against Brady.

47% shooting, 10 threes, 31-30 rebounding. Still lost.

 

[DoctorBombay]

"But our defense is what got us back into it!"

No, our press is what got us back into it. Our defense is the zone, and that is the biggest reason we lost the game, imo. Turnovers obviously hurt us badly down the stretch (shocking), but playing zone against Pittburgh is like playing soft prevent defense against Brady.

47% shooting, 10 threes, 31-30 rebounding. Still lost.

The zone allows good to marginal teams, often with lesser talent, to attack US, versus the other way around.
Hence the designated "career-Game journeyman" character we have witnessed repeatedly throughout JB's career.
Y'know- the guy who averages 6 pts a game, but ends up hitting multiple 3-ptrs at will versus our zone?
The issue for me is NOT whether we should play a zone defense, the issue is why we NEVER deviate from that defense, especially when its obviously not working.
Just like in yesterday's game, JB will press ONLY WHEN FORCED TO!!! And and as soon as we're back in the game...he falls back into that confounded zone and the other team regains its composure.
Its baffling.:bang:

 

[orangenirvana]

It's amazing how many dinosaurs out there still bitch about zone defense. As if no one can possibly beat man-to-man defense.

Explain why Syracuse has the 11th best 3-pt FG percentage defense in the nation if zone defense is so terrible.

As for "deviating from the zone" when an opponent is playing well, I haven't seen the Izzo's or Bennett's switch to zone too often when their man defense struggles.

This team does not play man defense. Get. Over. It.

 

[NineOneSeven]

It's amazing how many dinosaurs out there still bitch about zone defense. As if no one can possibly beat man-to-man defense.

Explain why Syracuse has the 11th best 3-pt FG percentage defense in the nation if zone defense is so terrible.

As for "deviating from the zone" when an opponent is playing well, I haven't seen the Izzo's or Bennett's switch to zone too often when their man defense struggles.

This team does not play man defense. Get. Over. It.

Wow. Great post. Actually, dumbest post I've seen so far today.

Was I bitching about zone defense? Did I demand we play man defense? Did I say, over the course of the season, our defense is terrible? I can only assume by the dinosaur comment you are insinuating age (I'm 25). Just an absolute trash reply. Not surprising though.

 

[DoctorBombay]

It's amazing how many dinosaurs out there still bitch about zone defense. As if no one can possibly beat man-to-man defense.

Explain why Syracuse has the 11th best 3-pt FG percentage defense in the nation if zone defense is so terrible.

As for "deviating from the zone" when an opponent is playing well, I haven't seen the Izzo's or Bennett's switch to zone too often when their man defense struggles.

This team does not play man defense. Get. Over. It.

Totally beside the point.
The issue isn't man-vs-zone, the issue is FLEXIBLITY. JB's insistence on NOT deviating from an ineffective zone, is like those "dinosaurs" in the NFL who INSIST on playing a "prevent defense" because the numbers "prove" it works.
What's wrong with changing things when something's not working? Our vaunted "11th best 3-pt FG percentage defense in the nation" was getting SHREDDED. We change up the D, employ the press, regain momentum, and then...go right back to the defense that got us into the mess in the first place. Why?

 

[Cusefan0307]

100%. We played about as well as we can play offensively. We rebounded with them. DC had his best game of the year IMO.

Some freak plays in the game though. Two or three times, Lydon deflected/blocked the ball and it landed right in Pitts hands for layups.

Some of that was just bad luck.

 

[RF2044]

"But our defense is what got us back into it!"

No, our press is what got us back into it. Our defense is the zone, and that is the biggest reason we lost the game, imo. Turnovers obviously hurt us badly down the stretch (shocking), but playing zone against Pittburgh is like playing soft prevent defense against Brady.

47% shooting, 10 threes, 31-30 rebounding. Still lost.

My main complaint about the zone is the offensive rebounding we give up. People point to our statistical data as evidence of how strong it is [and occasionally it is]. But against teams like Pitt that normally crash the offensive boards, we sometimes give up 2, 3, or 4 possessions in a row. Looks great statistically, but if the net result of a possession is them scoring on the fourth try, it isn't 25%--it is a score. That's where the data is sometimes misleading.

When we rebound and play tough defense, we're formidable. But this team has struggled to rebound all season long for the most part.

 

[orangenirvana]

Wow. Great post. Actually, dumbest post I've seen so far today.

Was I bitching about zone defense? Did I demand we play man defense? Did I say, over the course of the season, our defense is terrible? I can only assume by the dinosaur comment you are insinuating age (I'm 25). Just an absolute trash reply. Not surprising though.

Oh - you weren't bitching about zone defense or demanding we play man defense? Really?

"Our defense lost the game."

"Our defense is the zone, and that is the biggest reason we lost the game, imo."

"Playing zone against Pittburgh is like playing soft prevent defense against Brady."

You make tons of sense.

 

[orangenirvana]

Totally beside the point.
The issue isn't man-vs-zone, the issue is FLEXIBLITY. JB's insistence on NOT deviating from an ineffective zone, is like those "dinosaurs" in the NFL who INSIST on playing a "prevent defense" because the numbers "prove" it works.
What's wrong with changing things when something's not working? Our vaunted "11th best 3-pt FG percentage defense in the nation" was getting SHREDDED. We change up the D, employ the press, regain momentum, and then...go right back to the defense that got us into the mess in the first place. Why?

That's fair but JB's zone is full of adjustments. Sometime a team just gets hot and there's nothing you can do about it.

I agree that they should have kept pressing even after the tie but Boeheim probably thought they would have run out of gas by the final seconds.

 

[orangenirvana]

My main complaint about the zone is the offensive rebounding we give up. People point to our statistical data as evidence of how strong it is [and occasionally it is]. But against teams like Pitt that normally crash the offensive boards, we sometimes give up 2, 3, or 4 possessions in a row. Looks great statistically, but if the net result of a possession is them scoring on the fourth try, it isn't 25%--it is a score. That's where the data is sometimes misleading.

When we rebound and play tough defense, we're formidable. But this team has struggled to rebound all season long for the most part.

This team has a collection of poor rebounders regardless of whether they're playing man or zone. They could play man-to-man all season and still get beaten on the boards for most of the year.

 

[Bayside44]

"But our defense is what got us back into it!"

No, our press is what got us back into it. Our defense is the zone, and that is the biggest reason we lost the game, imo. Turnovers obviously hurt us badly down the stretch (shocking), but playing zone against Pittburgh is like playing soft prevent defense against Brady.

47% shooting, 10 threes, 31-30 rebounding. Still lost.

I was 5 rows off the court. The size differential between us and Pitt was like - well, the size differential between Pitt and us in football. If anything the zone helps, they just make zone busting shots.

 

[pfister1]

It's amazing how many dinosaurs out there still bitch about zone defense. As if no one can possibly beat man-to-man defense.

Explain why Syracuse has the 11th best 3-pt FG percentage defense in the nation if zone defense is so terrible.

As for "deviating from the zone" when an opponent is playing well, I haven't seen the Izzo's or Bennett's switch to zone too often when their man defense struggles.

This team does not play man defense. Get. Over. It.

For me it's not why do we play zone, it's why don't we do something different against Pitt. They haven't historically had more talent than us to justify their record against us, but they do do a really good job of playing against our defense and defending our offensive scheme. So, why don't we acknowledge that and change things up? It doesn't have to be man defense. Maybe its throw the press on for five minutes in the first half? Maybe its run a little bit different offense? It's not keep doing the same thing and expect a different outcome.

 

[NineOneSeven]

Oh - you weren't bitching about zone defense or demanding we play man defense? Really?

"Our defense lost the game."

"Our defense is the zone, and that is the biggest reason we lost the game, imo."

"Playing zone against Pittburgh is like playing soft prevent defense against Brady."

You make tons of sense.

Did I use the word man once?

11th in the country in 3pt FG defense has nothing to do with the outcome of this game. In THIS game they were 8-20. In THIS game they shot 27-56. I'm not saying the zone sucks and is the sole reason we lose every single game. In THIS game, against THIS team, our defense, which is a zone, was a big reason we lost. Like it is often when we play them. Again, I'm overall a zone fan. I also love pumpkin pie on thanksgiving. Sometimes I eat banana cream pie though to confuse my aunt.

Do you not understand the analogy? Sitting back in prevent defense all game against Brady is asking to get destroyed. You know what worked? Pressure. Blitzes. Make the player who carves up defenses to feel uncomfortable. We finally made the adjustment to press. Guess what? Pitt felt uncomfortable. "But all year our press isnt that good!" That's great. In THIS game it worked.

 

[Jasoncuse]

It's amazing how many dinosaurs out there still bitch about zone defense. As if no one can possibly beat man-to-man defense.

Explain why Syracuse has the 11th best 3-pt FG percentage defense in the nation if zone defense is so terrible.

As for "deviating from the zone" when an opponent is playing well, I haven't seen the Izzo's or Bennett's switch to zone too often when their man defense struggles.

This team does not play man defense. Get. Over. It.

But guess what, the 3-pt shooting allowed isn't what kills this team. If an opponent is dumb enough to jack up 3 after 3, the zone is more than effective enough, but if a team, like Pitt always does, decides to attack inside the paint, we struggle mightily.

We are one of the worst major conference teams in 2pt FG% defense at 48.8%. The only teams worse are FSU, Wake, St. John's, Minnesota, Rutgers, DePaul, GTech, Providence, Auburn, Oregon St, K State, Stanford, BC, VTech, Illinois, Michigan, LSU and Arizona State. Those are some BAD teams and some awful defensive teams.

I'm not saying MTM is the solution, because these kids' body types will get beat up trying to play MTM, but the zone we've played the last few years isn't exactly good enough to carry the team. As others have said, the lack of deviation from the zone is the issue more than simply playing zone. Switching it up from time to time when teams are killing us in the zone might not be such a bad idea.

 

[Knicks411]

But guess what, the 3-pt shooting allowed isn't what kills this team. If an opponent is dumb enough to jack up 3 after 3, the zone is more than effective enough, but if a team, like Pitt always does, decides to attack inside the paint, we struggle mightily.

We are one of the worst major conference teams in 2pt FG% defense at 48.8%. The only teams worse are FSU, Wake, St. John's, Minnesota, Rutgers, DePaul, GTech, Providence, Auburn, Oregon St, K State, Stanford, BC, VTech, Illinois, Michigan, LSU and Arizona State. Those are some BAD teams and some awful defensive teams.

I'm not saying MTM is the solution, because these kids' body types will get beat up trying to play MTM, but the zone we've played the last few years isn't exactly good enough to carry the team. As others have said, the lack of deviation from the zone is the issue more than simply playing zone. Switching it up from time to time when teams are killing us in the zone might not be such a bad idea.

The biggest issue with the 2 point defense I think is really we just don't have any size. We've had some great 2 point defense in years where we've played the zone because of the size we have.

I would imagine 2 point defense has a strong correlation with team height, particularly along the back line, plus offensive rebounds allowed (which can frequently turn into easy buckets). We're always going to struggle with allowing offensive rebounds out of the zone, but when we have size, we usually do pretty well defending 2's.

 

[Halfmooncuse]

It's amazing how many dinosaurs out there still bitch about zone defense. As if no one can possibly beat man-to-man defense.

Explain why Syracuse has the 11th best 3-pt FG percentage defense in the nation if zone defense is so terrible.

As for "deviating from the zone" when an opponent is playing well, I haven't seen the Izzo's or Bennett's switch to zone too often when their man defense struggles.

This team does not play man defense. Get. Over. It.

it also explains why we re such a terrible offensive rebounding team and allow others like pit when they aren't hitting the threes to get many more shots and offensive rebound scores than SU

 

[orangenirvana]

But guess what, the 3-pt shooting allowed isn't what kills this team. If an opponent is dumb enough to jack up 3 after 3, the zone is more than effective enough, but if a team, like Pitt always does, decides to attack inside the paint, we struggle mightily.

We are one of the worst major conference teams in 2pt FG% defense at 48.8%. The only teams worse are FSU, Wake, St. John's, Minnesota, Rutgers, DePaul, GTech, Providence, Auburn, Oregon St, K State, Stanford, BC, VTech, Illinois, Michigan, LSU and Arizona State. Those are some BAD teams and some awful defensive teams.

I'm not saying MTM is the solution, because these kids' body types will get beat up trying to play MTM, but the zone we've played the last few years isn't exactly good enough to carry the team. As others have said, the lack of deviation from the zone is the issue more than simply playing zone. Switching it up from time to time when teams are killing us in the zone might not be such a bad idea.

Our big men are terrible defenders and we have 0 shot blockers. That's why 2 point FG D is so poor.

 

[Jasoncuse]

The biggest issue with the 2 point defense I think is really we just don't have any size. We've had some great 2 point defense in years where we've played the zone because of the size we have.

I would imagine 2 point defense has a strong correlation with team height, particularly along the back line, plus offensive rebounds allowed (which can frequently turn into easy buckets). We're always going to struggle with allowing offensive rebounds out of the zone, but when we have size, we usually do pretty well defending 2's.

Maybe height is the issue, maybe not, but one thing seems certain is that the past couple of years, the defense hasn't been good enough. We were better vs 2ptrs last year, 46%, with G playing the back line, so I don't know. The rebounding this year may be as much a result of being out of position far too often as the size of the back line. Pitt had a number of OReb's and putbacks yesterday after DC vacated the middle to run out at shooters in the corner that were left open after a few ball reversals. Sometimes the makeup of the team, including size, experience and understanding of the zone just doesn't mesh with what JB wants to run.

It's almost as if the lineup has to be perfectly constructed with 2 forwards that are 6'8"ish with long arms, a shot blocker inside and lengthy guards up top. We had some pieces of that last year, some this year, but without the complete puzzle, the D is exploited. Hence, why many of us would simply like to see a few minutes of something else here and there. I know we aren't going full MTM and I definitely am not advocating for that; I just would like to see a press tossed in, some token double teams at midcourt, etc.

 

[NineOneSeven]

I'm just bitter we couldn't win one more game the last 6 weeks.

 

[Townie72]

Totally beside the point.
The issue isn't man-vs-zone, the issue is FLEXIBLITY. JB's insistence on NOT deviating from an ineffective zone, is like those "dinosaurs" in the NFL who INSIST on playing a "prevent defense" because the numbers "prove" it works.
What's wrong with changing things when something's not working? Our vaunted "11th best 3-pt FG percentage defense in the nation" was getting SHREDDED. We change up the D, employ the press, regain momentum, and then...go right back to the defense that got us into the mess in the first place. Why?

Man to Man is no more effective against long range shooting than the SU zone.

Why switch to something that isn't more effective?

Other than to appease the frustrated amateur coaches on here.

 

[Bayside44]

Did I use the word man once?

11th in the country in 3pt FG defense has nothing to do with the outcome of this game. In THIS game they were 8-20. In THIS game they shot 27-56. I'm not saying the zone sucks and is the sole reason we lose every single game. In THIS game, against THIS team, our defense, which is a zone, was a big reason we lost. Like it is often when we play them. Again, I'm overall a zone fan. I also love pumpkin pie on thanksgiving. Sometimes I eat banana cream pie though to confuse my aunt.

Do you not understand the analogy? Sitting back in prevent defense all game against Brady is asking to get destroyed. You know what worked? Pressure. Blitzes. Make the player who carves up defenses to feel uncomfortable. We finally made the adjustment to press. Guess what? Pitt felt uncomfortable. "But all year our press isnt that good!" That's great. In THIS game it worked.

We stopped scoring for large portions of the game. Our inability to finish down low in the first half of the second half was brutal. We have a big that never would be on campus if he grew up 80 miles further away and another who JB almost browbeat into submission in a 2nd half TO. Those are our problems. And our "shooter" was stapled to the bench until he wasn't.

 

[NineOneSeven]

We stopped scoring for large portions of the game. Our inability to finish down low in the first half of the second half was brutal. We have a big that never would be on campus if he grew up 80 miles further away and another who JB almost browbeat into submission in a 2nd half TO. Those are our problems. And our "shooter" was stapled to the bench until he wasn't.

Big plays. But we still played WELL offensively overall, that's my point.

 

[Knicks411]

Maybe height is the issue, maybe not, but one thing seems certain is that the past couple of years, the defense hasn't been good enough. We were better vs 2ptrs last year, 46%, with G playing the back line, so I don't know. The rebounding this year may be as much a result of being out of position far too often as the size of the back line. Pitt had a number of OReb's and putbacks yesterday after DC vacated the middle to run out at shooters in the corner that were left open after a few ball reversals. Sometimes the makeup of the team, including size, experience and understanding of the zone just doesn't mesh with what JB wants to run.

It's almost as if the lineup has to be perfectly constructed with 2 forwards that are 6'8"ish with long arms, a shot blocker inside and lengthy guards up top. We had some pieces of that last year, some this year, but without the complete puzzle, the D is exploited. Hence, why many of us would simply like to see a few minutes of something else here and there. I know we aren't going full MTM and I definitely am not advocating for that; I just would like to see a press tossed in, some token double teams at midcourt, etc.

I think a big difference is last year we had Rak in the middle; he played a ton of minutes and was a real good shotblocker. That covers up a lot of ills. (Though we still weren't great, just outside the top 100 in 2 point defense. The defense was actually 20th in the country last year, I don't remember it being quite that good).

And I agree with most of what you say. Both the offense and defense really haven't been good enough the last few years. The team hasn't been good enough the last two years.

 

[Bayside44]

Big plays. But we still played WELL offensively overall, that's my point.

We got down 12 (14?) after having a nice lead in the first half - that's not playing well. The game stats even out because we made a mad run late but that start of the second half and end of the first was awful.

What sucks is that UNC is gonna run Pitt off the floor today. They seem to rise up whenever they only see us.

Down 1, we needed another ball handler in the game and not a big who ran into no mans land.

 

[longislandcuse]

Like someone said earlier, it seems like our zone has to be perfectly constructed.

Next year we could have 6-6, 6-6, 6-8, 6-8, 7'2. If we can recruit that size, at those positions, every year...Sweet! Zone 24/7 but, can they score and can we recruit that size every year? If not, we're stuck with a coach who refuses to adapt and we try to fit square pegs into round holes all over the place.

We've been the definition of mediocre since joining the ACC. The ACC has smarter coaches, smarter players and better shooters. The Big East had better athletes. Maybe the zone, all day, everyday, isn't going to work in this conference.