Zone Defense

[docrugby1]

I know CC wants to play man but he has used a 2-3 zone in the past out of necessity. I would love to see the 1-3-1 resurrected for occasional use. BC employed this "D" with some success and with a lot less talent than on today's roster.

BC was a good coach,saddled with inferior talent, due to his own recruiting shortcomings. I hope CC does not discount the 1-3-1 because BC used it

I could see JVZ running the baseline rather than a point guard with Olah in the middle and some combination of Falzon, Law and Lindsay playing the wings with Tre out front. There probably would be enough offense for short periods and rebounding with a big lineup might not be as much of a problem as it was in BC's days

JVZ on the baseline would limit the lob passes that teams with good big men (Maryland and Lens comes to mind) used to defeat BC's 1-3-1

The disruption that this "D" causes might get a few more desperate shots as the 30 second clock expires. The lineup that I suggested might be challenged on the other end by a 30 second clock. Olah could play up high drawing the opposing center out allowing JVZ to get some offensive rebounds and put backs, maximiziing his abilities

 

[Sec.112]

I see few issues with your suggestion.

1) I don't mind where you're going with the "twin towers" on defense. I think the problem you encounter with JVZ and Olah on the court at the same time is on offense. From my one game of watching JVZ, I think you would lose too much on offense having either of these guys on the perimeter.

If Collins adjusted the offense to run sets with two big guys (high-low?), I could see it. But as the offense goes now, one of these guys would be on the perimeter, chucking up junk, and the team seems to be too versatile to have a weakness like that.

2) I'm not quite sure, but I don't think you can have Falzon on a defensive wing with Olah and JVZ out there. I'm not sure he's quick enough.

And it seems both of us agree you can't have McIntosh in this group either.

So that means we're looking at JVZ, Olah, Law, Lindsey and Demps.

Man, if I'm a opposing coach against that lineup and I have the talent, I let the dobermans loose full court. From an NU standpoint, I think you lose the advantage you're looking for against anything close to a quick team.

3) I don't think you need a zone defense with JVZ out there sans Olah. Once again, this is based on a single game, but JVZ seems competent enough to play a man defense.

Having said all that, it pretty obvious this team will have its struggles on defense. I don't know why they wouldn't mix it up 3-5 possessions per half, especially with a shorter shot clock. Teams will be adjusting to the clock this year and I'd pull out every defensive trick in the book.

 

[spartcat]

Never mind the 1-3-1 for a minute. There are reasons for thinking that the match-up 2-3 might end up being our best choice against our most athletic opponents, especially when our main stretch 4's (Falzon & Taphorn) are in. I don't doubt the man-up abilities of our main wings though, so man will often be a good choice for us.

As for the 1-3-1, the rule was generally to have the shortest guy run the baseline so the length on the ball would be greatest. We can put a really quick set of mid sized to big players out there, so it might be interesting to see what sort of havoc they could create. JVZ in the middle would make that lob pass very challenging. Maybe.....

 

[hdhntr1]

Never mind the 1-3-1 for a minute. There are reasons for thinking that the match-up 2-3 might end up being our best choice against our most athletic opponents, especially when our main stretch 4's (Falzon & Taphorn) are in. I don't doubt the man-up abilities of our main wings though, so man will often be a good choice for us.

As for the 1-3-1, the rule was generally to have the shortest guy run the baseline so the length on the ball would be greatest. We can put a really quick set of mid sized to big players out there, so it might be interesting to see what sort of havoc they could create. JVZ in the middle would make that lob pass very challenging. Maybe.....

The guy on the baseline has to be quick enough to get side to side. In the past, that has kept us from using a taller guy. With better athletes, maybe someone like Lindsey or Law might be able to handle it but it would probably take from their O. Otherwise, will still be using small guard. But at this point, it would more likely just be employed as a change of pace gimmick as the opposing Os would not be used to facing it.

 

[docrugby1]

The guy on the baseline has to be quick enough to get side to side. In the past, that has kept us from using a taller guy. With better athletes, maybe someone like Lindsey or Law might be able to handle it but it would probably take from their O. Otherwise, will still be using small guard. But at this point, it would more likely just be employed as a change of pace gimmick as the opposing Os would not be used to facing it.

I have not seen JVZ play but from what I have read , he is quick and long . I put him on the baseline with these attributes in mind.. I do not want a little guy back there-watching Sobo fight for rebounds was painful

 

[JournCat]

The 1-3-1 for a few plays a game could work. Lumpkin, Law, Lindsey and either Olah or JVZ could cause a ton of trouble for an unprepared team, with either Mac or Demps running the baseline. The concern would be only half of those guys have played 1-3-1 in a game, and that was more than two years ago. Practice time spent on the 1-3-1 would probably be of better use working on our base defenses.

 

[Ubermorgen]

Never liked the 1-3-1 for teams strong up top and along the baseline. With good passing too many mis-matches can arise. I, too, think the 2-3 matchup is probably a better choice. And should be able to switch it up from man to zone relatively easy.

 

[Mr. Stupor]

The 1-3-1 works best as a change-up. Otherwise, it's a Plan B, and a sign that a normal defense isn't working.

 

[spartcat]

PS: Now that the Quincy game has been on BTN, we know more. The match-up 2/3 zone will probably be a common sight as it was in the exhibition, especially without Law. I don't mind the match-up at all, but it's a shame about Vic.