People calling for m2m is comical

[gilardino]

we will not do it. Adjustments are made in the zone

 

[FrancoPizza]

Just because coach will not do it doesn't mean we can't discuss possible benefits of greater flexibility. What's comical are the folks who just blindly repeat JBs mantra, can't think for themselves, and diss alternatives that have never been given a fair chance to succeed.

Having said that I think zone was a smart move vs unc... but the 4-1 crap against big and talented front lines has to stop.

 

[rrlbees]

Just because coach will not do it doesn't mean we can't discuss possible benefits of greater flexibility. What's comical are the folks who just blindly repeat JBs mantra, can't think for themselves, and diss alternatives that have never been given a fair chance to succeed. Having said that I think zone was a smart move vs unc... but the 4-1 crap against big and talented front lines has to stop.

We don't play a 4-1.

 

[br801]

We don't play a 4-1.

Yes, but it seems that's the new mantra here.

 

[patcuse]

Just because coach will not do it doesn't mean we can't discuss possible benefits of greater flexibility. What's comical are the folks who just blindly repeat JBs mantra, can't think for themselves, and diss alternatives that have never been given a fair chance to succeed.

Having said that I think zone was a smart move vs unc... but the 4-1 crap against big and talented front lines has to stop.

we should never be 4 out in the zone. 2 passes away should still be down. When the ball is reversed the wing comes up and the opposite wing drops back down.

 

[newmexicuse]

Just because coach will not do it doesn't mean we can't discuss possible benefits of greater flexibility. What's comical are the folks who just blindly repeat JBs mantra, can't think for themselves, and diss alternatives that have never been given a fair chance to succeed.

Having said that I think zone was a smart move vs unc... but the 4-1 crap against big and talented front lines has to stop.

I think has we jumped into the M2M at the end of the Clemson game for 5 secs & taken them by surprise that we win easy.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

We don't play a 4-1.

It sure doesn't look like a 2-3 anymore though. Our wings start out every play near the foul line extended. Or so it seems.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

we will not do it. Adjustments are made in the zone

I wonder if Duke fans said the same thing about Coach K adding zone to his arsenal of defenses. If the arguably greatest college coach of all time can adapt in that way, why can't JB?

 

[Brooky03]

What does m2m solve? That's my biggest question. I don't see it helping us much in the paint, so I'm not sure where the benefit comes in.

 

[two3zone]

What does m2m solve? That's my biggest question. I don't see it helping us much in the paint, so I'm not sure where the benefit comes in.

Would have been nice at the end of the Clemson game.

 

[44cuse]

What does m2m solve? That's my biggest question. I don't see it helping us much in the paint, so I'm not sure where the benefit comes in.

UNC would have annihilated our "bigs" in m2m. As long as they could have made mediocre entry passes they would have been backing down Lydon and Roberson all day long. And I'm not a 100% zone proponent, but that ship sailed years and years ago. You are correct...gets us nothing in the paint.

44cuse

 

[sabach]

It sure doesn't look like a 2-3 anymore though. Our wings start out every play near the foul line extended. Or so it seems.

The 2-3 zone SU plays is not a traditional 2-3 and the wings are very extended at the beginning of the defensive set. It falls back into a 2-3 mentality but the initial set up does look like a 4-1.

 

[Brooky03]

Would have been nice at the end of the Clemson game.

The end of regulation? That three resulted from over-rotation and Lydon not recognizing that he should have abandoned all thoughts of defending the paint. The zone is more than capable of defending that.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

The 2-3 zone SU plays is not a traditional 2-3 and the wings are very extended at the beginning of the defensive set. It falls back into a 2-3 mentality but the initial set up does look like a 4-1.

Thank you. Appreciate it when others see what I'm seeing.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

What does m2m solve? That's my biggest question. I don't see it helping us much in the paint, so I'm not sure where the benefit comes in.

I'm not saying it solves anything. I'm saying having that weapon in your arsenal is a good thing to have in desperate situations. People spend so much time prepping for our zone it would be great to surprise them once in a while with a new look that would throw them out of rhythm. That's all.

 

[Brooky03]

I'm not saying it solves anything. I'm saying having that weapon in your arsenal is a good thing to have in desperate situations. People spend so much time prepping for our zone it would be great to surprise them once in a while with a new look that would throw them out of rhythm. That's all.

We have a 'trunk monkey' with our fullcourt press and surprise traps. Teams are so used to playing against m2m, I don't think it would screw them up too much.

 

[RF2044]

Thank you. Appreciate it when others see what I'm seeing.

I think that some posters [not you, I know that you play, know the game well, and understand this nuance] mistake the forwards hedging hard up on the wings for a 4-1, which it is not. This has been done in our zone for a LONG time, dating back to the 1996 season. And most of the time, our wings have the quickness to get back to their spots after flashing high to deter either a shot or dribble penetration. The zone also gambles on funneling things inside, where we've had a lengthy run of shot blockers to help negate attempts.

The problem this year is that our two wings are poor defensively, react slowly, and are often out of position. So when that extra pass occurs, they're chasing the ball. Players like CJ Fair and others who've excelled on the back line of the zone were capable of thinking two steps ahead, and positioning themselves to be in the right spots most of the time. And of course, when all else fails, the last line of defense was having a Rick or a Fab or a Rak in there to challenge shots if the ball got inside. That latter point being one of the primary reasons why we are usually such a poor defensive rebounding team.

This year--poor wing defenders plus subpar shot blocking plus a skinny frosh playing out of position at center who gets pushed around = sieve inside.

 

[two3zone]

The end of regulation? That three resulted from over-rotation and Lydon not recognizing that he should have abandoned all thoughts of defending the paint. The zone is more than capable of defending that.

Yeah. Really showed there in that situation.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

We have a 'trunk monkey' with our fullcourt press and surprise traps. Teams are so used to playing against m2m, I don't think it would screw them up too much.

I'd love to not see our fullcourt press again this season. It's awful. Terrible. I'd rather see m2m.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

I think that some posters [not you, I know that you play, know the game well, and understand this nuance] mistake the forwards hedging hard up on the wings for a 4-1, which it is not. This has been done in our zone for a LONG time, dating back to the 1996 season. And most of the time, our wings have the quickness to get back to their spots after flashing high to deter either a shot or dribble penetration. The zone also gambles on funneling things inside, where we've had a lengthy run of shot blockers to help negate attempts.

The problem this year is that our two wings are poor defensively, react slowly, and are often out of position. So when that extra pass occurs, they're chasing the ball. Players like CJ Fair and others who've excelled on the back line of the zone were capable of thinking two steps ahead, and positioning themselves to be in the right spots most of the time. And of course, when all else fails, the last line of defense was having a Rick or a Fab or a Rak in there to challenge shots if the ball got inside. That latter point being one of the primary reasons why we are usually such a poor defensive rebounding team.

This year--poor wing defenders plus subpar shot blocking plus a skinny frosh playing out of position at center who gets pushed around = sieve inside.

I hear what you are saying, but I'm seeing the wings taking an extra step or two out that I don't ever remember before. Heck, when G is actually playing the 3 slot, he's usually out as high as Cooney and Kaleb/Howard are to start the possession.

 

[sabach]

I think that some posters [not you, I know that you play, know the game well, and understand this nuance] mistake the forwards hedging hard up on the wings for a 4-1, which it is not. This has been done in our zone for a LONG time, dating back to the 1996 season. And most of the time, our wings have the quickness to get back to their spots after flashing high to deter either a shot or dribble penetration. The zone also gambles on funneling things inside, where we've had a lengthy run of shot blockers to help negate attempts.

The problem this year is that our two wings are poor defensively, react slowly, and are often out of position. So when that extra pass occurs, they're chasing the ball. Players like CJ Fair and others who've excelled on the back line of the zone were capable of thinking two steps ahead, and positioning themselves to be in the right spots most of the time. And of course, when all else fails, the last line of defense was having a Rick or a Fab or a Rak in there to challenge shots if the ball got inside. That latter point being one of the primary reasons why we are usually such a poor defensive rebounding team.

This year--poor wing defenders plus subpar shot blocking plus a skinny frosh playing out of position at center who gets pushed around = sieve inside.

That might be the point people are making about playing some man to man. If we do not have the players who can think 2 steps ahead in zone and positioning themselves accordingly nor do we have the shot blockers who can make up for defensive lapses in the zone on the perimeter, we have a problem if that zone is the only thing we ever play. Again, I know JB will never go man to man. But if we do not have the players to play that defense at a high level and we insist on continuing to play that defense exclusively, there are consequences.

 

[rrlbees]

The 2-3 zone SU plays is not a traditional 2-3 and the wings are very extended at the beginning of the defensive set. It falls back into a 2-3 mentality but the initial set up does look like a 4-1.

It only "looks" that way if the opponent starts in a 4 out offensive set. We play a 2-3 which moves based upon the offensive players and where the ball is. I've said this before but if you took still photos, it would look like a 2-3, a 1-4, a 1-3-1, a 3-2 etc at any one time along with some traps. It is constant movement and changes with the offensive look.

 

[RF2044]

That might be the point people are making about playing some man to man. If we do not have the players who can think 2 steps ahead in zone and positioning themselves accordingly nor do we have the shot blockers who can make up for defensive lapses in the zone on the perimeter, we have a problem if that zone is the only thing we ever play. Again, I know JB will never go man to man. But if we do not have the players to play that defense at a high level and we insist on continuing to play that defense exclusively, there are consequences.

I'd have no problem with the team switching defenses a bit, even if just for a few possessions. Have stated that on the forum dating back to 1996, when we began playing zone nearly exclusively.

But it is important to keep in mind that this group of personnel might be even more poorly suited for man than zone. So...

 

[sabach]

It only "looks" that way if the opponent starts in a 4 out offensive set. We play a 2-3 which moves based upon the offensive players and where the ball is. I've said this before but if you took still photos, it would look like a 2-3, a 1-4, a 1-3-1, a 3-2 etc at any one time along with some traps. It is constant movement and changes with the offensive look.

Yes, but in a traditional 2-3, the wing players do not defend the 3 point line like we do at the start of the set, even if the offense starts out in a 4 out offensive set.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

It only "looks" that way if the opponent starts in a 4 out offensive set. We play a 2-3 which moves based upon the offensive players and where the ball is. I've said this before but if you took still photos, it would look like a 2-3, a 1-4, a 1-3-1, a 3-2 etc at any one time along with some traps. It is constant movement and changes with the offensive look.

You got me thinking so I'm taking this on a tangent. Why does it seem like our trapping is so awful this year as well? Are our defenders not strong enough to prevent the offensive guy from splitting the trap. We have some decent length but I can't remember the last time we got a decent trap in the corner resulting in a turnover or forcing the other team to take a timeout.

Or is it because we are too spread out? Curious what others think on this one.