When you don’t have elite talent you need to adjust what you do depending on the matchup

[AlpharettaCuse]

The more you post at me my standing goes up on this board. Please continue.

What standing? Are you trying to win something? You started another post criticisizing Boeheim. That’s all you do. Am I now allowed to respond? Lol

By the way earlier this season you were fine with the defense. Too funny.

 

[syrBossHogg]

I’d rather see us full court press to switch things up on defense instead of a half court man to man, especially if Chewy and Brissett are in the game.

 

[Alsacs]

What standing? Are you trying to win something? You started another post criticisizing Boeheim. That’s all you do. Am I now allowed to respond? Lol

By the way earlier this season you were fine with the defense. Too funny.

OMFG I am FINE with the defense.
Are you just this bleak that don’t get the point being made or do I need to spell out like a freaking kindergartener to you.
If you can’t figure out the point being made it’s pointless and just shows you are arguing at me just to argue.

 

[ForCuseSake]

Again against a team like Duke playing zone 100% makes sense.
They can’t shoot from 3.
The point here is when we play a team like UNC which kills us on the glass and basically has the strategy any first shot is a good shot because we will just get the rebound and score from that then maybe mixing in a little man to man help on the defense glass can help.
Our offense against UNC deserved better but the zone is why we lost that game and don’t adjust or try any different.

We lost the UNC game because we choked at the FT line.

Trying M2M against UNC is more likely to make it easier for them to score than it would positively impact our ability to rebound.

I suppose that's one strategy to reduce the negative rebounding margin but I don't think that helps win the game.

It's harder to compete with a strong rebounding team when they miss fewer shots because they're exploiting individual match ups.

 

[Townie72]

You want to be honest we beat Duke because their PG was out, Cam Reddish sat out and they are a terrible 3 point shooting team. Plus our offense scored a ton of points.
Defense did not win the Duke game.

So Duke’s struggles in the OT period had nothing do with SU’s defense in the OT period?

 

[Alsacs]

So Duke’s struggles in the OT period had nothing do with SU’s defense in the OT period?

OMG I have never our zone doesn’t work. It works and especially against this year’s Duke team it’s the obvious best defense. It’s undisputed we won the Duke game because of our offense as we scored 48 points in the first half and 85 in regulation.
You give JB 85 points in regulation I would expect he would win that game every time.
The point being made originally here is the 100% zone cost us the UNC game because of the defensive rebounding and the fact is if we tried 95% zone instead of 100% maybe we get rebounds on those possessions and don’t give up second chance points the zone did a ton against UNC.
My god why you and the other guy bring this back to JB is maddening.
All you needed is one or two stops and we could won that game and it’s not like the zone was working well against UNC. Their strategy was clearly shoot don’t worry if you miss we will get the rebound and then score or get fouled.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

OMFG I am FINE with the defense.
Are you just this bleak that don’t get the point being made or do I need to spell out like a freaking kindergartener to you.
If you can’t figure out the point being made it’s pointless and just shows you are arguing at me just to argue.

Wait...I’m confused. If you’re fine with our zone (which is 100% zone) why are you complaining about it? Relax brother. It’s not worth getting mad about.

 

[ForCuseSake]

Well, if he he shoots his career average, even if he make just one of those, so 10% that night vs. 0%, we lose. Fact.

And, in regards to your comment about UNC's front line stature when it comes to rebounding. That's isn't the reason they are dominant on the boards, as this year's team lack's that type of physical stature. It's effort, grit, and mental toughness, and the way they go after the boards, etc. that's gets them those results. Ty Bowan of BC in his 6'1" physical stature, got 12 rebounds last night in the game against Louisville. He averages 8 rebounds per game...all 6'1" of him.

How do we lose if Jack White makes 1 3pt shot - the final score was 95-91.

If the reason UNC, or Ty Bowman, are excellent at rebounding is "effort, grit and mental toughness"...

Then what difference does playing zone vs M2M make?

What's the point of switching temporarily to M2M if "effort, grit, and mental toughness" determine rebounding success?

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

All you needed is one or two stops and we could won that game and it’s not like the zone was working well against UNC.

What makes you think switching to man to man would “confuse” UNC or make the slightest bit of difference? C’mon dude.

 

[orangecuse]

OMG I have never our zone doesn’t work. It works and especially against this year’s Duke team it’s the obvious best defense. It’s undisputed we won the Duke game because of our offense as we scored 48 points in the first half and 85 in regulation.
You give JB 85 points in regulation I would expect he would win that game every time.
The point being made originally here is the 100% zone cost us the UNC game because of the defensive rebounding and the fact is if we tried 95% zone instead of 100% maybe we get rebounds on those possessions and don’t give up second chance points the zone did a ton against UNC.
My god why you and the other guy bring this back to JB is maddening.
All you needed is one or two stops and we could won that game and it’s not like the zone was working well against UNC. Their strategy was clearly shoot don’t worry if you miss we will get the rebound and then score or get fouled.

88-88 at the end of regulation. Absolutely, our O was the reason we pulled out the W. It's funny that we needed 92 points to win that game, (95-91 in OT) by far our greatest output of the season to date, and some want to debate how it was our defensive effort somehow made the difference. Interesting.

 

[orangecuse]

How do we lose if Jack White makes 1 3pt shot - the final score was 95-91.

If the reason UNC, or Ty Bowman, are excellent at rebounding is "effort, grit and mental toughness"...

Then what difference does playing zone vs M2M make?

What's the point of switching temporarily to M2M if "effort, grit, and mental toughness" determine rebounding success?

Keep trying. It was 88-88 at the end of regulation. You do the math.

I think switching m2m is more to potentially get a team out of its offensive flow per se if they are hitting from outside, etc. Since we have been advised by JB, that we don't box out in the zone, etc., and it's a space thing, it keeps our guys from being that, as they are glued, for a lack of a better word, to their location/space.

 

[ForCuseSake]

Keep trying. It was 88-88 at the end of regulation. You do the math.

Here's why your post was wrong...

White would've had to shoot 12.5% (1-8) for Duke to win in regulation.

If he shot 50% (1-2) in OT, Duke still loses.

Is that enough math for you?

 

[orangecuse]

Here's why your post was wrong...

White would've had to shoot 12.5% (1-8) for Duke to win in regulation.

If he shot 50% (1-2) in OT, Duke still loses.

Is that enough math for you?

Well, 1-8 is still 50% less than his 25% career average argument you asserted first. So, I allowed you the opportunity to change your argument because he went 0-2 in OT. Good for you.

Edit: However, your changed argument is still flawed, as had White made one of those 2 in the OT, Duke's not in the same position to having to foul in the waning moments of the OT, and Chuku doesn't make the FT's that sealed the W in the OT. It likely plays out quite differently.

 

[Bayside44]

talent disparity??????????

there was no talent disparity! if anything, SU played with more talent in the game - that's how they overcame the lopsided rebounding and free throw margins.

UNC won b/c of free throws and rebounds. not talent.

the game is 10 4-minute intervals. throw a couple wrinkles in for a few of those intervalas and teams will be unprepared. by the time they adjust after the next 4 minutes switch back - KEEP THE OPPONENT GUESSING.

JB already throws out the press occasionally and the aggressive trapping in the zone - the more wrinkles the better - the more stuff the opponent has to worry about the better. teams often turn the ball over 1 or 2 times the first time they are blitzed with a new scheme and are caught unprepared...then they adjust, generally. Plus, style of play in the game as influyenced by the warriors and the NBA lends itself to beating the zone better than ever, imo. players now are ready to chuck from 3 better than they were in NCAA of times past.

UNC switched to zone and then buddy hit a 3 right away so they abandoned zone - which was lucky for SU in my opinion.

having different options in the swiss army knife of defenses is better. nowadays, scouting and coaching has caught up a bit to the SU zone imo...time to keep opponents honest.

I remember stevie thompson shutting teams down in box and 1.

to me, i wish it wasnt the case - but 100% zone is a bit lazy.

the advantage is that the coach can adjust how the defense responds but for whatever reason that hasnt helped at all this year - the adjustments the team has been making haven't helped - and the team has been gutted in many second halves when the adjustements are supposedly supposed to make things better for the defense and harder for opponents.

some teams - big ones with great rebounding who can also shoot well from 3 - like odu, buffalo, unc - are great zone-busting teams and particularly likely to beat this ROSTER. syracuse has the height to play man - play chukwu, marek and ob as the forwards and they are taller than every team in the country - rebounding would be an ADVANTAGE for THIS TEAM in M2M. the current roster is WAY TOO TALL to be outrebounded by anyone 45-25. everyone on the court is 6-5 or taller thats insane height for NCAA plus a 7'2" center...its crazy height.

White and Little are top 10 picks. Maye is better than anyone we have.

 

[Bayside44]

I swear it’s amazing how some people just can’t even comprehend how switching just temporarily can be used as an advantage.
Nobody is saying scrap the zone. It works. It’s just when the opponent knows how to beat maybe just throwing them off for a few possessions can switch momentum.

Playing 95% zone isn’t an indictment it’s just saying we can switch.
Mike Hopkins does it now.

Fine - switch to man. UNC just then runs the same plays they ran two days prior when they beat the pants off whomever it was (wake?)

Hop's coaching his team against their lesser opponents.

 

[ForCuseSake]

Well, 1-8 is still 50% less than his 25% career average argument you asserted first. So, I allowed you the opportunity to change your argument because he went 0-2 in OT. Good for you.

Guess how many 3pt shots White has made since going 0-10 against us in January.

0.

In 12 games he's made zero 3 pt shots. 0-16

I wonder why he didn't play against us at the Dome. Was it the basketball gods or the fact that he sucks at shooting 3s?

 

[orangecuse]

Guess how many 3pt shots White has made since going 0-10 against us in January.

0.

In 12 games he's made zero 3 pt shots. 0-16

I wonder why he didn't play against us at the Dome. Was it the basketball gods or the fact that he sucks at shooting 3s?

The gods told K to put in O'Connell, and watch him part the Red Sea.

 

[SWC75]

Steve, first off, there are very few teams that can't shoot from the outside these days. Many players are now more comfortable shooting 3's versus mid-range. Secondly, ANY team that is coached on proper spacing and ball reversals will find seams in the zone no matter how good the zone personnel is. The killer part is that it doesn't require McDs talent to learn how to pass through or shoot over the zone. This doesn't even get into the rebounding deficiencies which I will not get into.

But all that said, I completely appreciate that the zone can present situational advantages, especially some of the wrinkles that JB employs, and I would never want to see the next coach totally abandon it. But anyone who defends the way it is currently used 100% of the time has a case of Stockholm Syndrome as I said earlier.

Actually, when our zone has been defeated by the other team it has tended to be done by the top teams in the country who do have top level talent. We've lost to teams that aren't among the top teams in the country due to our offensive problems, which ought to be the focus of discussion. The 20 foot shot/20 foot drive concept we've been working form since 2012-13 is just too limited. We haven't been a great outside shooting team except for 2016-17, when we didn't have the personnel to play the zone properly and lost games on the defensive end. And if you have to start your drive from 20 feet away, the defense has maximum time to respond. If we scored more consistently well, people wouldn't be complaining about the zone, as they didn't in the 2009-2012 period.

 

[djcon57]

Some people can’t understand that switching to a defense we never play and that the opposing team sees 90% of the time is a dumb idea.

They are fixated on this idea that surprise is going to discombobulate the opponent. That might happen occasionally when a M2M team switches to the seldom seen zone. But it isn’t going to happen when you switch to a defense they see almost exclusively during the season.

Why has Jim done it before successfully then?

Like there are specific examples where we switched from zone to man and won.

Can you explain why a hall of fame coach would do this when you (whom I don’t believe is a hall of fame coach) called it dumb?

 

[Tom K.]

Two things are for certain.
1) He will never switch.
2) If he did pepper in man, it wouldn't happen during a game mid-season. It would mess up our team as much as, probably more than, the opponent.

 

[Bayside44]

Why has Jim done it before successfully then?

Like there are specific examples where we switched from zone to man and won.

Can you explain why a hall of fame coach would do this when you (whom I don’t believe is a hall of fame coach) called it dumb?

Kansas 12 years ago? Flynn was a great ball on defender and Harris was Harris. I don't think our guards can stay in front of White.

 

[Cusedad2X]

JB has incoming recruits take a blood test. The samples are sent to Baylor Genetics where they screen for mutations that predispose athletes to poor man-2-man fundamentals. Call it bad luck, but based on the majority of the results, it's no wonder he says they can't play it.

LOL Too funny!!

 

[djcon57]

Kansas 12 years ago? Flynn was a great ball on defender and Harris was Harris. I don't think our guards can stay in front of White.

I never said anything about UNC.

I was responding to this “Some people can’t understand that switching to a defense we never play and that the opposing team sees 90% of the time is a dumb idea.”

Was it a dumb idea 12 years ago when the same specifics mentioned in the quote are true?

If you want to say, we can’t play man because we don’t have the skill/talent to play it, fine. To say switching defenses in general is a dumb idea, well, JB disagrees when he had the talent

 

[OrangeDW]

I never said anything about UNC.

I was responding to this “Some people can’t understand that switching to a defense we never play and that the opposing team sees 90% of the time is a dumb idea.”

Was it a dumb idea 12 years ago when the same specifics mentioned in the quote are true?

If you want to say, we can’t play man because we don’t have the skill/talent to play it, fine. To say switching defenses in general is a dumb idea, well, JB disagrees when he had the talent

I still remember Pitt putting on a clinic against us in the first half in 2003, and we switched to man and shut them down and came back and won in the second half.

I guess I look at this way...when we were going 30-5 and 34-3 and creating turnovers and running and scoring in transition out of our zone, I was all onboard with 100% zone.

Not sure that philosophy is working as well now. We don’t run effectively out of it. We don’t have Grants, and Wes Johnson’s, and Fairs at the forward spots anymore. And we’re not winning nearly as much. Perhaps it’s time to consider making adjustments...just like we made that adjustment to 100% zone in 2010.

 

[Alsacs]

I still remember Pitt putting on a clinic against us in the first half in 2003, and we switched to man and shut them down and came back and won in the second half.

I guess I look at this way...when we were going 30-5 and 34-3 and creating turnovers and running and scoring in transition out of our zone, I was all onboard with 100% zone.

Not sure that philosophy is working as well now. We don’t run effectively out of it. We don’t have Grants, and Fairs at the forward spots anymore. And we’re not winning nearly as much. Perhaps it’s time to consider making adjustments...just like we made that adjustment to 100% zone in 2010.

This is all I am talking about.
We can be a 95% of the time zone team.
Changing defenses when we are struggling on defense is all that is being debated.
Yet we have fans who think we can’t even try man to man and see if it will help momentum.
When we are getting shredded we do nothing different unless we press after scoring to try and speed the opponent up or force turnovers.