Who still hates the Zone?

[kirbivore]

There are always going to be times where I think we COULD employ a secondary defense, or at least try to switch up the defense. I think mainly against bad teams is where we need to have the capacity to trot it out though. Against better teams, who have lots of capable ballhandlers, it's a huge weapon.

Against crap teams, sometimes it lets them dictate the pace of the game to us and stay in late enough to make it come down to who can hit shots at the end.

Vermont wasn't a crap team (underseeded that year), but you described that 2005 tourney game.

 

[rrlbees]

I prefer points per possession ratings (efficiency) because it factors in rebounding which many try to evaluate independently. What good is 22% 3pt FG if you give up a layup on the offensive rebound? We were 65th in defensive before the winning streak. Now someone says we're up to 37. That's a huge jump in large part because the rebounding has dramatically improved. It's very encouraging even if it's against undersized or undermanned front lines.

We usually rebound bad nit because of the zone but because we are a bad rebounding team. Coleman isn't going to jump higher or have better hands in a m2m. Lydon isn't going to gain 40 pounds and get stronger in a m2m. You're trying to build a false negative.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

We usually rebound bad nit because of the zone but because we are a bad rebounding team. Coleman isn't going to jump higher or have better hands in a m2m. Lydon isn't going to gain 40 pounds and get stronger in a m2m. You're trying to build a false negative.

I agree that is an issue with this year's team but how does that explain 2011-2015? None of those teams were Top 50 defensive rebounding teams.

 

[pulaski74]

"You can use 'statistics' to 'prove' anything." Speciously.

Exactly, okstate over kansas, georgetown over Xavier, spartys losing to everyone, who knows what these kids are going to do once the game starts? UO goes down w/ the next best player on the earth? Watch because you like it, you never know.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

We usually rebound bad nit because of the zone but because we are a bad rebounding team. Coleman isn't going to jump higher or have better hands in a m2m. Lydon isn't going to gain 40 pounds and get stronger in a m2m. You're trying to build a false negative.

I disagree with this post on a few different levels. First, in the man to man, you have your man only to box out, unlike the zone which requires you to find the nearest guy. Coleman's hands seem to be fine in securing the rebounds he gets. He gets stripped when he's going up for a shot, but not that often on a rebound. I think Lydon would have a hard time playing center defense in a man to man versus the top big guys in the ACC, but I imagine JB wouldn't ask him to do that all that much. It's easier for him to play the center in the zone when he gets help from his friends, but one on one would be tough for him.

Just my opinion though because we haven't actually seen man in so long.

 

[rrlbees]

I disagree with this post on a few different levels. First, in the man to man, you have your man only to box out, unlike the zone which requires you to find the nearest guy. Coleman's hands seem to be fine in securing the rebounds he gets. He gets stripped when he's going up for a shot, but not that often on a rebound. I think Lydon would have a hard time playing center defense in a man to man versus the top big guys in the ACC, but I imagine JB wouldn't ask him to do that all that much. It's easier for him to play the center in the zone when he gets help from his friends, but one on one would be tough for him. Just my opinion though because we haven't actually seen man in so long.

If you go back to when we played m2m some we didn't really box out either. There are many coaches who feel that regardless of the defense played, being aggressive and just going and getting the ball is how you rebound. Even the many games I see on tv now, where most teams play m2m, I don't see a lot of true boxing out.

 

[FrancoPizza]

If you go back to when we played m2m some we didn't really box out either. There are many coaches who feel that regardless of the defense played, being aggressive and just going and getting the ball is how you rebound. Even the many games I see on tv now, where most teams play m2m, I don't see a lot of true boxing out.

That's correct, but even without boxing out fundamentals, by nature of m2m the defender is typically positioned closer to the basket. All things equal, the offensive player is at a disadvantage in those setups. We've never been a good defensive rebounding team, but historically compensated with transition points because our guards were well-positioned on outlets... which in turn would tend to discourage some teams from sending extra players to offensive rebound. The zone creates situations that the offense can exploit from a rebounding perspective, BUT when we do get the defensive rebound we used to be very effective at pushing the ball because now we have the numbers advantages in the other direction.

The inability to fast break is severely exposing the zone's deficiencies in recent years in that respect. We're not making the other teams pay.

 

[igor]

mike plays man knowing full well he'll get hammered occasionally but knowing full well that when he gets a post presence, like last year, he'll win it all. jb goes tavern knowing he'll only win if melo has a kid.

 

[skurey]

mike plays man knowing full well he'll get hammered occasionally but knowing full well that when he gets a post presence, like last year, he'll win it all. jb goes tavern knowing he'll only win if melo has a kid.

Amazing

 

[two3zone]

Vermont wasn't a crap team (underseeded that year), but you described that 2005 tourney game.

This isn't directed just at you but this bugs me a lot because I see it over and over and over and over.

The Vermonts, St. Francises, La Techs, the Bonnies, and all the other junk teams that we play, no matter how good they are we have zero business not beating these guys by 10 each game. I get every once in awhile they may play us close, but come on. We're Syracuse for christ sakes. There is nothing more that burns my ears than "They'll probably win their league. Who the hell cares if the Bonnies are going to win their league, their league sucks and if they have anything average compared to the P5 schools they SHOULD win their league. None of these teams have any business hanging around with us or winning games against us, the difference between us and them would be like Oak Hill playing against Marcellus High School. Strive for greatness and don't settle for less.

 

[OttoMets]

This isn't directed just at you but this bugs me a lot because I see it over and over and over and over.

The Vermonts, St. Francises, La Techs, the Bonnies, and all the other junk teams that we play, no matter how good they are we have zero business not beating these guys by 10 each game. I get every once in awhile they may play us close, but come on. We're Syracuse for christ sakes. There is nothing more that burns my ears than "They'll probably win their league. Who the hell cares if the Bonnies are going to win their league, their league sucks and if they have anything average compared to the P5 schools they SHOULD win their league. None of these teams have any business hanging around with us or winning games against us, the difference between us and them would be like Oak Hill playing against Marcellus High School. Strive for greatness and don't settle for less.

Yeah, this is one of the exceptions to the "style of defense doesn't matter" contention.

The only way a Vermont can beat Syracuse is if the game is played in the 50s or 60s. Why gamble? Force the tempo and run them off the floor.

I still feel awful about the Vermont game, but the example that always comes to my mind is the 2011 pre-season NIT. Virginia Tech and Stanford were awful and we needed late-game comebacks to eke out the two wins. Ugly teams are able to stick with us in a half-court game. It'd be nice to avoid that by using our athletic advantage when there's a big mismatch.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

Yeah, this is one of the exceptions to the "style of defense doesn't matter" contention.

The only way a Vermont can beat Syracuse is if the game is played in the 50s or 60s. Why gamble? Force the tempo and run them off the floor.

I still feel awful about the Vermont game, but the example that always comes to my mind is the 2011 pre-season NIT. Virginia Tech and Stanford were awful and we needed late-game comebacks to eke out the two wins. Ugly teams are able to stick with us in a half-court game. It'd be nice to avoid that by using our athletic advantage when there's a big mismatch.

If it makes anyone feel better, Germaine is getting fat now and although he can make a few 3s when left alone, he's fairly easy to guard even by yours truly.

 

[Cusefan0307]

And the reason we lost to UVM was not the zone, and I know he's everyones favorite and he had a great career here, but Gerry was horrible that day. He shot like 4-18. Warrick had about 12 turnovers. It was one of the worst offensive performances I've ever seen. Worse than Dayton two years ago and I was at both games.

 

[OttoMets]

If it makes anyone feel better, Germaine is getting fat now and although he can make a few 3s when left alone, he's fairly easy to guard even by yours truly.

Makes me feel worse - since he and I are roughly the same age, that means it's no longer 2005 anymore and I must be getting old...

 

[OttoMets]

And the reason we lost to UVM was not the zone, and I know he's everyones favorite and he had a great career here, but Gerry was horrible that day. He shot like 4-18. Warrick had about 12 turnovers. It was one of the worst offensive performances I've ever seen. Worse than Dayton two years ago and I was at both games.

It's a little attenuated, but the zone played an important role. I'm quoting myself from the Stanford post-game thread from 2011, but Vermont could only beat us by playing Vermont's game. Syracuse was a better team and each player was better than his Vermont counterpart. So whose tempo should we play - ours or theirs?

Think of it this way - if Tom what's-his-face had negotiated with Boeheim before the game if he'd prefer a game played in the 80s or a limited-possession game played in the 50s, which would he have sold his soul for?

We're typically poor at speeding inferior teams up. Slow pace often favors the underdog. It's what got the zone praised after Kansas in 1996, but it's also what's bitten us in a few NCAA losses (Butler, etc.).

 

[Cusefan0307]

It's a little attenuated, but the zone played an important role. I'm quoting myself from the Stanford post-game thread from 2011, but Vermont could only beat us by playing Vermont's game. Syracuse was a better team and each player was better than his Vermont counterpart. So whose tempo should we play - ours or theirs?

Think of it this way - if Tom what's-his-face had negotiated with Boeheim before the game if he'd prefer a game played in the 80s or a limited-possession game played in the 50s, which would he have sold his soul for?

We're typically poor at speeding inferior teams up. Slow pace often favors the underdog. It's what got the zone praised after Kansas in 1996, but it's also what's bitten us in a few NCAA losses (Butler, etc.).

Fair enough, we could of played faster, but it still doesn't account for how bad they were on offense that day.

The T-Rob tech was ridiculous as well.

 

[two3zone]

And the reason we lost to UVM was not the zone, and I know he's everyones favorite and he had a great career here, but Gerry was horrible that day. He shot like 4-18. Warrick had about 12 turnovers. It was one of the worst offensive performances I've ever seen. Worse than Dayton two years ago and I was at both games.

When a guy is hitting threes from the parking lot and your two guards can't leave their areas because it opens up easier shots it plays a huge part. We play man and a guy is actually on the long bomber he doesn't take that shot let alone make it.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

When a guy is hitting threes from the parking lot and your two guards can't leave their areas because it opens up easier shots it plays a huge part. We play man and a guy is actually on the long bomber he doesn't take that shot let alone make it.

That was one shot and regardless of defense no one is playing him that far from the basket. Unless you are pressing.

 

[OttoMets]

Fair enough, we could of played faster, but it still doesn't account for how bad they were on offense that day.

The T-Rob tech was ridiculous as well.

Yeah, McNamara shot us out of it, and the technical was weird. I still maintain that a number of Warrick's turnovers were shaky calls. Just horrible that that class's career ended like that, a week after they whipped UConn in New York with an easy shot at the Big East title and a 2 or 3 seed (seemingly) locked up. Horrible. Got screwed on the seed and played badly.

 

[br801]

It's a little attenuated, but the zone played an important role. I'm quoting myself from the Stanford post-game thread from 2011, but Vermont could only beat us by playing Vermont's game. Syracuse was a better team and each player was better than his Vermont counterpart. So whose tempo should we play - ours or theirs?

Think of it this way - if Tom what's-his-face had negotiated with Boeheim before the game if he'd prefer a game played in the 80s or a limited-possession game played in the 50s, which would he have sold his soul for?

We're typically poor at speeding inferior teams up. Slow pace often favors the underdog. It's what got the zone praised after Kansas in 1996, but it's also what's bitten us in a few NCAA losses (Butler, etc.).

It was interesting seeing BlueCurtain in that thread you linked.

 

[two3zone]

That was one shot and regardless of defense no one is playing him that far from the basket. Unless you are pressing.

They'd playing him closer than they were. Neither one of these three hits with even a little man pressure.

 

[OttoMets]

It was interesting seeing BlueCurtain in that thread you linked.

Yeah, that struck me, too - some familiar posters but a few we haven't seen for awhile.

 

[OttoMets]

They'd playing him closer than they were. Neither one of these three hits with even a little man pressure.

Did Forth foul out? Weird lineup.

It's interesting to see clips of zone from several years ago. Despite whatever flaws they have, today's players are a lot more active.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

They'd playing him closer than they were. Neither one of these three hits with even a little man pressure.

That's simply not true.

Cooney makes shots all the time when guys play man on him. The first one, by Germaine, was a typical one we give up. Gerry looked very tired (I still believe there is something to the rumor he was hungover). The second one was five feet back from NBA three. TJ never hit one from that deep before and hasn't since. No one would play him that deep.

 

[two3zone]

That's simply not true.

I'm not debating Gmacs play, I'm debating the defense played on the 2 three pointers. They were both wide open and the guys who should've/would've guarded them were nowhere near them because of the zone. Keep watching it over and over and just answer me where the guy who defended the shot was and why he wasn't guarding the shooter.