Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Townie72, post: 1685563, member: 780"]
In Boehiem's book he talked about the Zone.

He said that there are only 5 or 6 things a team can do against it. So all they have to do is to prepare for those 5 or 6 things. It doesn't mean they can stop the other team every time, but as the statistics prove, the Zone is very good most of the time.

With M2M, Boeheim says, there are 18 or 20 things a team can do to attack it.

So to switch to M2M, a defense, you rarely use, opens you up to the entire playbook of the other team. And it's not like this is unfamiliar to the opponent, as it's the defense they play, practice against and see in 95% of their games.

So the suggestion is that we switch from our defense to one (M2M) that the opponent is absolutely prepared to face and with which we are relatively unfamiliar.

I think when people call for this occasional switch it's because they are both frustrated and because they don't understand the logic behind playing the Zone 100% of the time. Even though the JB gives the explanation, if the frustrated would take the time to read it and could understand it.

But there is among some this crazy belief that SU suddenly switching to a M2M would discombobulate the other team. That's ridiculous as it's the defense they are used to seeing and would prefer we played.

Some even appear to believe that M2M is better against accurate long-range outside shooting. An old theory from the Converse All Star days when teams were force out of Zone defenses by outside shooting.

There just isn't any advantage to an occasional switch to M2M and plenty of obvious downside. Other than to satisfy some frustrated fans.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?