This game is why. Good shooting teams can destroy you. Still a Collins and cat fan. Glad he used it for the 4 game stretch, but you have to be able to play man.
Not a zone fan
- Thread starter realcatfan
- Start date
It's like any other defense. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. I've seen Syracuse win a national championship playing 2-3 zone, so you definitely don't have to play man to win games. What you do need to do is recruit to whatever system you're playing. Right now, Collins has a big man who can't guard well in space, so it's hard for him to play man and stay out of foul trouble.
About Syracuse, for example
If you know, what 2-3 zone adjustments would a team like Syracuse make, if any, when up against a team that was burying 3's and threatening to put the game out of reach? Would they start mixing in man-to-man? Would they play the zone scheme a bit differently? Or would they just wait for the early barrage become a clank-fest?
If you know, what 2-3 zone adjustments would a team like Syracuse make, if any, when up against a team that was burying 3's and threatening to put the game out of reach? Would they start mixing in man-to-man? Would they play the zone scheme a bit differently? Or would they just wait for the early barrage become a clank-fest?
Re: About Syracuse, for example
I didn't see the Illinois game, but Syracuse moves very aggressively in its zone and usually recruits tall, lanky guys who can get their arms up and contest the passing lanes. I thought we made some very good adjustments against Penn State after they hit a few early ones against us and also against Indiana. But it also helped that neither Penn State nor Indiana have much of an inside game this year. There are certainly problems you can encounter playing a zone, but we've been 4-1 since going to that as opposed to losing 10 in a row with man-to-man in the mix. As we recruit more and more athletic guys in the future, I would think we should be able to mix our defenses better.
I didn't see the Illinois game, but Syracuse moves very aggressively in its zone and usually recruits tall, lanky guys who can get their arms up and contest the passing lanes. I thought we made some very good adjustments against Penn State after they hit a few early ones against us and also against Indiana. But it also helped that neither Penn State nor Indiana have much of an inside game this year. There are certainly problems you can encounter playing a zone, but we've been 4-1 since going to that as opposed to losing 10 in a row with man-to-man in the mix. As we recruit more and more athletic guys in the future, I would think we should be able to mix our defenses better.
The difference was ILLINOIS defense and the fact they were at HOME. They smothered us into a ten minute drought with their depth of stronger, quicker guys. Our man defense struggled to contain their quickness in Evanston too as I remember Nunn continually cutting thru the lane on us for easy baskets and Starks shooting over us, and they DIDNT HAVE Rice in that game.
Interestingly, PSU , Indiana and Illinois all started out hot against us from 3. PSU cooled off earlier than Indiana did, but the difference was, both games were at Welsh-Ryan. Illini fed off their crowd and they couldn't miss all night. Hill was 1-for-10 at Iowa. Remember when Aaron White was 1-for-12 against us at W-R. He's been a beast ever since (averaging better than 20 a game).
Maybe we'll mix it up a little against Michigan, we'll see.
Interestingly, PSU , Indiana and Illinois all started out hot against us from 3. PSU cooled off earlier than Indiana did, but the difference was, both games were at Welsh-Ryan. Illini fed off their crowd and they couldn't miss all night. Hill was 1-for-10 at Iowa. Remember when Aaron White was 1-for-12 against us at W-R. He's been a beast ever since (averaging better than 20 a game).
Maybe we'll mix it up a little against Michigan, we'll see.
I've have and always will be a big believer in man-to-man, but I'm also down with getting wins however you can get them. Last night it didn't matter what defense we would've used...they were unconscious. Still, I do hope Collins ultimate goal is man-to-man 80% of the time...
Bob Knight played man-to-man for years with great success at Indiana. I'm sure other teams were "prepared" for it, but if really doesn't matter if you guard people well.
Square pegs-round holes. It is up to CC to round the pegs. Switching between man and a variety of zones in a game may buy you a few extra possessions, making a difference in a close game.
Illinois shot "lights out"- I'm not sure we could have won the game without a similar shooting performance
I think this would have been a great game to roll out the 1-3-1 late in the first half. We were getting a beat down, so why not?
Refusal to make any noticeable changes in the 2nd half - a bit frustrating. Hoping CCC learns to make better in game adjustments and is afraid to take a chance once in awhile. Even some switching between zone and man would have shown something.
Refusal to make any noticeable changes in the 2nd half - a bit frustrating. Hoping CCC learns to make better in game adjustments and is afraid to take a chance once in awhile. Even some switching between zone and man would have shown something.
Yes, because CCC has had several years of consistent under-performance and is afforded a dozen assistant coaches to specialize in every aspect of the sport. CCC has loyally stood by every aspect of the program he inherited. He didn't use his hiring as an opportunity to clean house and has utterly refused to hold his staff accountable along the way. And has gone from face of the school to arse of the school, full of bravado and contempt. No wait - that's Fitz...
Let's give CCC at least as much rope as Fitz, yes? There is some evidence that CCC is willing to accept failure and make changes, but the timeliness is a concern. And CCC is humble, straight forward and a joy to watch/listen to - just like Fitz used to be.
But Glades, I like that you are coming around
Originally posted by hdhntr1:
The kids are just learning the 2-3. As Collins goes on, more will be in his arsenal but for now it is limited.[/QUOTE]I think this is a valid point, but M2M was still in the arsenal, and in a blow out, why not game test some other strategies?
The kids are just learning the 2-3. As Collins goes on, more will be in his arsenal but for now it is limited.[/QUOTE]I think this is a valid point, but M2M was still in the arsenal, and in a blow out, why not game test some other strategies?
So the Cats win four in a row with the zone, lose one, and now it has to go? It's funny, but I don't remember anyone having a problem with it before Saturday. The Cats did play man, for the overwhelming majority of the time, and it got them a 10-game losing streak. I don't think the defense they played would have mattered against Illinois -- the Illini simply shot the lights out. Other teams came out and shot well against it, too, but they eventually came back to earth. The 2-3 has worked very well for NU. There's no reason they shouldn't keep running it. Maybe now they'll mix in some man, too.
Or you might get torn up in the man and get people in foul trouble. I think Collins has given man a pretty thorough trial this year, and it was found wanting. It is up to him to round the pegs, but he's got to have the proper personnel to pound them into the holes. Michigan was playing a fairly decent man defense against Maryland the other day, decided to change pace with a 1-3-1, and got destroyed.
I didn't see UM v UMD but Layman (sic) is a 6'10 player that would be perfect to throw over the top to in a 1-3-1. I think the switch to the 2-3 by CC utilized his personnel better but he should have man to man and another zone (1-3-1) ready to go if necessary
Syracuse was very similar to Northwestern in the early eighties when Boeheim rolled out the zone. They didn't have the full breadth of athletes. They had a couple of elite players and then mostly stiffs. The zone was clearly designed for Syracuse to be competitive with more athletic teams....so, please be patient.
The other thing is that the zone defense isn't super easy to learn. It requires shifting responsibilities, and then the ability to make in-game changes successfully. When something works, or a shooter goes off, they need to do a full five man shift to prevent that from continuing. It is a somewhat subtle and only with tons of practice can it be accomplished. (Boeheim absolutely goes nuts every year on freshman because they can't/don't make the right reads. That, and he is a little bit of a crazy person.)
My view on the Illinois game was that when an Illini player went off NU couldn't make the shift to stop it. Yes, it is a problem, that the zone can allow some to shoot them up a bit. (in the beginning Syracuse got shot out of playing the zone, and just meant that they would lose that game --- then they went zone only and life was better) The key is learning the right shift.
The other thing is that one of the most effective things to do out of the zone D is trap. I can point to at least three times where the ball rotated into spots where we should have trapped but did not. The forward was able to easily look around the zone and throw it over top to a wide open guard standing in shooting position around the three point line. This is where the Cuse-like player with arms for a much taller person is ultimately effective. However, I think a good trap is about hustle and we should have that for miles.
Either way --- if Collins buys into this, goes for it, and they practice it all summer going into next season it could be a awesome. It will drive the entire big ten nuts as they will have to prep for NU is a completely different way than they do other teams. They will have to learn all new things for the offense that they only get to use when they play NU. They will need discipline that young teams don't tend to have. We will book tickets for post season games where people play basketball on identical looking courts all over the country.
The other thing is that the zone defense isn't super easy to learn. It requires shifting responsibilities, and then the ability to make in-game changes successfully. When something works, or a shooter goes off, they need to do a full five man shift to prevent that from continuing. It is a somewhat subtle and only with tons of practice can it be accomplished. (Boeheim absolutely goes nuts every year on freshman because they can't/don't make the right reads. That, and he is a little bit of a crazy person.)
My view on the Illinois game was that when an Illini player went off NU couldn't make the shift to stop it. Yes, it is a problem, that the zone can allow some to shoot them up a bit. (in the beginning Syracuse got shot out of playing the zone, and just meant that they would lose that game --- then they went zone only and life was better) The key is learning the right shift.
The other thing is that one of the most effective things to do out of the zone D is trap. I can point to at least three times where the ball rotated into spots where we should have trapped but did not. The forward was able to easily look around the zone and throw it over top to a wide open guard standing in shooting position around the three point line. This is where the Cuse-like player with arms for a much taller person is ultimately effective. However, I think a good trap is about hustle and we should have that for miles.
Either way --- if Collins buys into this, goes for it, and they practice it all summer going into next season it could be a awesome. It will drive the entire big ten nuts as they will have to prep for NU is a completely different way than they do other teams. They will have to learn all new things for the offense that they only get to use when they play NU. They will need discipline that young teams don't tend to have. We will book tickets for post season games where people play basketball on identical looking courts all over the country.
Illinois was definitely hot from the 3 pt line. But I was amazed at how easily they threw the cross-court passes against our zone. I think they call them "skip" passes. No zone can't rotate that quickly and defend quick passes across the court. Obviously length and athleticism on defense can prevent those, but Illinois did a great job of rotating our zone and got easy shots, and made them.
"I think this would have been a great game to roll out the 1-3-1 late in
the first half. We were getting a beat down, so why not?"
Is the 1-3-1 even an option? I know the upperclassmen have experience with it, but I tend to think Collins hasn't had them spending time on it in practice.
While we may be familiar with it and Beilein (who borrows principals from the Princeton crew) uses it from time to time, "the kraken" isn't a part of many defensive playbooks around the country.
the first half. We were getting a beat down, so why not?"
Is the 1-3-1 even an option? I know the upperclassmen have experience with it, but I tend to think Collins hasn't had them spending time on it in practice.
While we may be familiar with it and Beilein (who borrows principals from the Princeton crew) uses it from time to time, "the kraken" isn't a part of many defensive playbooks around the country.
+1
Hah! Lose a game, change everything!!!
Seriously, Illinois was just wicked hot. It happens. It isn't like NU lit it up on the offensive end...................
Hah! Lose a game, change everything!!!
Seriously, Illinois was just wicked hot. It happens. It isn't like NU lit it up on the offensive end...................
Re: +1
Every analyst who reviews the Big 10 teams' chances for the tourney says that the Illini had to win the game against NU to still be in the tournament. They were "desperate" for a win or are now in survival mode for the tourney. You couple that with the fact that they were playing at home means that the Illini had an advantage. That want to or desperation can be shown in the rebounding edge. Not sure why NU did not use a bigger lineup and replace Skelly for Lumpkin who is not tall enough or wide enough to rebound on a consistent basis in the Big 10 and is an offensive liability. Oh well! That's an issue for another day.
Every analyst who reviews the Big 10 teams' chances for the tourney says that the Illini had to win the game against NU to still be in the tournament. They were "desperate" for a win or are now in survival mode for the tourney. You couple that with the fact that they were playing at home means that the Illini had an advantage. That want to or desperation can be shown in the rebounding edge. Not sure why NU did not use a bigger lineup and replace Skelly for Lumpkin who is not tall enough or wide enough to rebound on a consistent basis in the Big 10 and is an offensive liability. Oh well! That's an issue for another day.
Re: +1
And let's not forget that Indiana is 4th in the country in 3pt FG%, so the notion that the zone can't work against a quality shooting team doesn't seem to hold water in that context.
And let's not forget that Indiana is 4th in the country in 3pt FG%, so the notion that the zone can't work against a quality shooting team doesn't seem to hold water in that context.
Is a zone more likely to work better at home, where opponents are shooting in unfamiliar surroundings?
I think we need to play the matchups a little better. Illinois has lots of good guards that can shoot. Their center is more of a defensive stopper. I'd have Olah play a soft man so he can help with the driving guards. This would leave Egwu softly guarded from 15+. I'm ok with that.
It seems to my untrained eye that Collins is trying to figure out what it is that NU can do to make them the best team. He's ignoring the opponent. What makes NU the best against Michigan is not what makes NU the best vs Illinois.
This post was edited on 3/3 9:37 AM by realcatfan
It seems to my untrained eye that Collins is trying to figure out what it is that NU can do to make them the best team. He's ignoring the opponent. What makes NU the best against Michigan is not what makes NU the best vs Illinois.
This post was edited on 3/3 9:37 AM by realcatfan
Anyone who thinks that a kid playing D1 basketball in a power conference is just now "learning the 2-3" is delusional. Kids start learning the zone when they're 8 years old. And the 2-3 is the most basic of all the zone defenses. xybobxy is right-- it was frustrating that we did not switch to man when getting destroyed from the outside. You make switches back and forth to keep teams off balance. That's what coaches do. If it doesn't work, you can change back. But to argue that "we tried man to man before and it didn't work so let's never go back to it again" when you are getting lit up from the outside makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
The basic principals of the zone itself are started young but the nuances of it at this level and switching assignments etc are a different story. Tell the people who played against the Syracuse zone that it was the same as what they faced in grade school and see how they react.
Well, your premise is wrong. We did play (rarely) some man D. The main reason we didn't play more, of course, was that we didn't have the talent to do it. However, Carmody changed defenses A LOT. He went from a weird hybrid defense that I could never quite figure out, to a 2-3, to a 1-3-1, to a match-up zone. The rapid changing of defenses was quite effective; surely even you would admit that.
Switched to man a few times tonight. I'm sure we'll zone Iowa Saturday and make them beat us from deep. They've been a little inconsistent from distance, although since the loss to us, White has been making some threes.
We were mostly man when we were behind late and pressing, corrrect? Didn't see a lot of man in the half court game, did I miss it?
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Game Thread: Northwestern vs. No. 2 Ohio State
- Latest: mshelton33
-
-