The 2-3 Pressure Scheme late down 5

[Orangeman]

That lead to the wide open wing jump shot for 3 (by a guy that had made like 3 threes in the 2H if I'm not mistaken)…

The strategy employed, if it was indeed employed by coaching directive, was really puzzling.

The two guards out front edged higher and "bracketed" the ball-handler, but they didn't apply pressure nor force a 5-count. This hedging accomplished nothing and forced our back three to guard 4, who were spread out all over the court.

We didn't respect the guy at the foul line, so he was wide open and they simply fed him the ball. But you can't simply leave a guy naked there with the ball so (I believe) McCullough crashed to cover him, which lead to the kick out and easy three. BTW, at this point in the evolution of college basketball, we should assume that every team has two capable 3-point shooters to man each wing, it's just reality.

This is all important because that wasn't a fluke play…it was a flawed defensive strategy which could have involved a "1-1-3" to apply pressure to the ball carrier (we weren't trapping anyway), force the 5-count, still cover the backside, etc. That's if you thought zone made sense there, which I obviously don't but whatever.

The offense is clearly the bigger issue, but our Defensive strategies, such as this, hurt us late in games when we need a stop (like Michigan last week -- wide-open three for Albrecht that they didn't "earn").

Sports evolve over time, coaching staffs have to as well…we should realize that a 2-3 zone is very effective against a front line that you don't have an answer for…but anybody tall that's any good leaves before junior year, so every team has better perimeter players than interior players.

 

[Madbiker]

That lead to the wide open wing jump shot for 3 (by a guy that had made like 3 threes in the 2H if I'm not mistaken)…

The strategy employed, if it was indeed employed by coaching directive, was really puzzling.

The two guards out front edged higher and "bracketed" the ball-handler, but they didn't apply pressure nor force a 5-count. This hedging accomplished nothing and forced our back three to guard 4, who were spread out all over the court.

We didn't respect the guy at the foul line, so he was wide open and they simply fed him the ball. But you can't simply leave a guy naked there with the ball so (I believe) McCullough crashed to cover him, which lead to the kick out and easy three. BTW, at this point in the evolution of college basketball, we should assume that every team has two capable 3-point shooters to man each wing, it's just reality.

This is all important because that wasn't a fluke play…it was a flawed defensive strategy which could have involved a "1-1-3" to apply pressure to the ball carrier (we weren't trapping anyway), force the 5-count, still cover the backside, etc. That's if you thought zone made sense there, which I obviously don't but whatever.

The offense is clearly the bigger issue, but our Defensive strategies, such as this, hurt us late in games when we need a stop (like Michigan last week -- wide-open three for Albrecht that they didn't "earn").

Sports evolve over time, coaching staffs have to as well…we should realize that a 2-3 zone is very effective against a front line that you don't have an answer for…but anybody tall that's any good leaves before junior year, so every team has better perimeter players than interior players.

Good observations. I agree teams have been doing this to us regularly the last couple seasons. If a team gets the ball into a player at the foul line area in the middle of the zone, and they have 2 good 3 pt shooters on opposite wings we really have a problem. The wings collapse on the guy at the foul line and that leaves the wing 3 pt shot open. Louisville under Pitino has been doing that to us all the time. Teams with multiple 3 pt shooters present a real problem and there are more and more of them.

 

[cuseguy]

Good observations. I agree teams have been doing this to us regularly the last couple seasons. If a team gets the ball into a player at the foul line area in the middle of the zone, and they have 2 good 3 pt shooters on opposite wings we really have a problem. The wings collapse on the guy at the foul line and that leaves the wing 3 pt shot open. Louisville under Pitino has been doing that to us all the time. Teams with multiple 3 pt shooters present a real problem and there are more and more of them.

Ya think teams know how to attack our zone by now?

It's not like it's new to St. John's.

 

[Brooky03]

The 3 point dagger that put the game away was McCullough's fault, not the coaches' or the scheme's fault. He cheated too far towards the lane for no apparent reason. That's twice now that we let teams in late game situations shoot 3's. In those cases, we should force them to drive. Every single player... even the ones who suck from 3pt land. Seriously.

 

[Orangeman]

The 3 point dagger that put the game away was McCullough's fault, not the coaches' or the scheme's fault. He cheated too far towards the lane for no apparent reason. That's twice now that we let teams in late game situations shoot 3's. In those cases, we should force them to drive. Every single player... even the ones who suck from 3pt land. Seriously.

I think you need to rewatch the play. There were two of our guards "guarding" their point. The foul line was wide open. They passed him the ball. Christmas could not jump up or else they'd have a wide open dunk by the guy on the block. One of our wings (in this case G or McC had to step in to guard the wide-open guy at the foul line which would have left one of their shooters wide open on the wing, which is what happened). They had a 4-3 behind our guards, that's indisputable. The gamble here is that the guy we directed to be their new ball-handler at the foul-line makes an error because he's not the guard. He didn't, he recognized the rotation and fed the shooter (it ain't THAT hard).

I assume you're not suggesting they should have given up a wide-open 12 footer to the guy at the key? Or left Rak on a 2-1 in the paint?

You do raise an interesting point though…The zone defense by design puts players in difficult decisions. By far the most infuriating thing for me today was watching Christmas AND McCullough flying out to a 3 point shooter in the corner at the same time in the first half…both late, both ineffective, both arguably doing "the right thing" and the wrong thing at once.

But, back to the original point…I disagree that this play was McCullough's fault. He had to make a split second decision on a 2-1 and he chose the foul-line over the 3-point shooter. If he doesn't guard the foul-line, conceptually they have a 2-1 with Rak going to the basket late in the shot clock.

 

[Eagles20]

I think you need to rewatch the play. There were two of our guards "guarding" their point. The foul line was wide open. They passed him the ball. Christmas could not jump up or else they'd have a wide open dunk by the guy on the block. One of our wings (in this case G or McC had to step in to guard the wide-open guy at the foul line which would have left one of their shooters wide open on the wing, which is what happened). They had a 4-3 behind our guards, that's indisputable. The gamble here is that the guy we directed to be their new ball-handler at the foul-line makes an error because he's not the guard. He didn't, he recognized the rotation and fed the shooter (it ain't THAT hard).

I assume you're not suggesting they should have given up a wide-open 12 footer to the guy at the key? Or left Rak on a 2-1 in the paint?

You do raise an interesting point though…The zone defense by design puts players in difficult decisions. By far the most infuriating thing for me today was watching Christmas AND McCullough flying out to a 3 point shooter in the corner at the same time in the first half…both late, both ineffective, both arguably doing "the right thing" and the wrong thing at once.

But, back to the original point…I disagree that this play was McCullough's fault. He had to make a split second decision on a 2-1 and he chose the foul-line over the 3-point shooter. If he doesn't guard the foul-line, conceptually they have a 2-1 with Rak going to the basket late in the shot clock.

On the first one Chris fell back and was flat footed and killed his chances of getting out onto the shooter who was wide open. On the second three he was sucked way into the middle and wasn't in front of the offensive player and allowed himself to get completely screened off. He didn't play either positionally well. They had a stretch in the second half where the up tempo defense got them many steals and into transition..they just could offensively make the plays to push the lead. They didn't extend to full court defense till later and that was when Greene hit his second three and it was with the shot clock pretty low once the defense already settled in.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

the pressure 2/3 is meant to speed up the other team's offense more than anything. Force them to jack up a quick shot and hope they miss. Its not really effective at creating straight turnovers. It actually gives teams such good looks that they almost are forced to shoot early in the clock.

 

[Brooky03]

I think you need to rewatch the play. There were two of our guards "guarding" their point. The foul line was wide open. They passed him the ball. Christmas could not jump up or else they'd have a wide open dunk by the guy on the block. One of our wings (in this case G or McC had to step in to guard the wide-open guy at the foul line which would have left one of their shooters wide open on the wing, which is what happened). They had a 4-3 behind our guards, that's indisputable. The gamble here is that the guy we directed to be their new ball-handler at the foul-line makes an error because he's not the guard. He didn't, he recognized the rotation and fed the shooter (it ain't THAT hard).

I assume you're not suggesting they should have given up a wide-open 12 footer to the guy at the key? Or left Rak on a 2-1 in the paint?

You do raise an interesting point though…The zone defense by design puts players in difficult decisions. By far the most infuriating thing for me today was watching Christmas AND McCullough flying out to a 3 point shooter in the corner at the same time in the first half…both late, both ineffective, both arguably doing "the right thing" and the wrong thing at once.

But, back to the original point…I disagree that this play was McCullough's fault. He had to make a split second decision on a 2-1 and he chose the foul-line over the 3-point shooter. If he doesn't guard the foul-line, conceptually they have a 2-1 with Rak going to the basket late in the shot clock.

Yes, I'm suggesting exactly that. Let the guy open in the lane shoot it. An open 12 footer is better than an open 3 every single day (from a defensive perspective). I don't remember exactly who had the ball in the lane, but there was no need to collapse on him in that situation.

 

[Orangeman]

the pressure 2/3 is meant to speed up the other team's offense more than anything. Force them to jack up a quick shot and hope they miss. Its not really effective at creating straight turnovers. It actually gives teams such good looks that they almost are forced to shoot early in the clock.

That is probably true and quite scary. We don't score enough (few in college hoops do) to play that way on D, giving up potentially free baskets

 

[Orangeman]

Yes, I'm suggesting exactly that. Let the guy open in the lane shoot it. An open 12 footer is better than an open 3 every single day (from a defensive perspective). I don't remember exactly who had the ball in the lane, but there was no need to collapse on him in that situation.

Well, that flies in the face of what most basketball players have been taught forever so I can appreciate McCullough's gut instinct to guard the most dangerous player.

I guess I just disagree on the strategy. The predominant argument seems to be that we just don't have the right players

But you're not always going to have the right players, that's where coaching and strategy come in (like 90% of college hoops).

It's got to be OK to say I love Boeheim but that I believe he's currently way off on overall and potentially defensive strategy.



And before people retort that they're not giving up a lot of points, defense isn't the problem, etc...no one is scoring these days. That's the game. Our problem in that scenario is that our defense gives up wide open shots to the opponents top shooters just when we shouldn't be doing that.