Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="NineOneSeven, post: 1981246, member: 871"]
For some reason people think that when the zone is criticized, the "critics" are implying that the zone never works and ignoring the majority of the time it works (based on the numbers.. and it does work, quite often). It's so off-base. Here is what I do not get. If the zone "works" 90% of the time, why would you accept the other 10% just because the overwhelming majority of the time it is good? How does changing the scheme for that 10% imply that you are dissatisfied with the 90% success rate? And does changing it up for 10% of the time mean you won't be as good the other 90% of the time (doubtful)?

"Wisconsin is a good team, smart with a lot of capable players who understand passing lanes and movement, most teams won't be able to hang against our zone". But some teams will. And when they are clearly embarrassing your defense, what is the negative with changing something? Wisconsin scored a 3 pointer or got a great shot in the paint seriously almost every possession to start each half. So say we switch up our defense to something else, and Wisconsin scores a 3 pointer or gets another dunk. So what? They were already doing it!

The only explanation for sticking with the defense in games like last night, for the entire game, is to get players more experience with it in general (this is big given our new roster), but especially against a team that clearly knows how to beat it. Accept serious defeat to hopefully improve against less zone-offense capable teams.

I don't know. All I know is that defense last night was scary bad. Wisconsin is good, and we were bad.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?