Pack Line Defense

[chaboom]

It is difficult to defend the 3-point shot out of this defensive scheme, in fact, with the 4 off-the-ball defenders' main priority being to "pack" the paint area, it actually gives up the 3 point shot assuming your opponent won't hit enough of them to beat you. Last night, IPFW played the classic attack against the pack line: 1. space the floor and position shooters deep in the corners to create driving gaps, 2. dribble attack the gaps after ball reversal to draw defensive help, 3. kick the ball out for open jumpers, and 5. after the penetrator jump stops and pivots to look for the open shooter, mix in back cuts as the defensive scrambles back out to defend the perimeter.

Expect to see some version of this employed by future opponents. IPFW could put 5 dangerous shooters on the floor. I think we may need an adjustment at times against a line-up like this that sends less help inside in order to extend the defense more out to the perimeter.

 

[Kazhoosier]

This is not the only team to just shred up our defense with three-point shooting - it seems to be a pattern. I thought Coach Miller tried to adjust by going small, but he kept double teaming on the pick and roll instead of switching every screen and really getting up in the offensive player's space when he had the ball. We are not going to be very successful defensively if team's play 5-out and have players who can shoot - we are giving up wide open shots with our current approach.

 

[kkott]

It is difficult to defend the 3-point shot out of this defensive scheme, in fact, with the 4 off-the-ball defenders' main priority being to "pack" the paint area, it actually gives up the 3 point shot assuming your opponent won't hit enough of them to beat you. Last night, IPFW played the classic attack against the pack line: 1. space the floor and position shooters deep in the corners to create driving gaps, 2. dribble attack the gaps after ball reversal to draw defensive help, 3. kick the ball out for open jumpers, and 5. after the penetrator jump stops and pivots to look for the open shooter, mix in back cuts as the defensive scrambles back out to defend the perimeter.

Expect to see some version of this employed by future opponents. IPFW could put 5 dangerous shooters on the floor. I think we may need an adjustment at times against a line-up like this that sends less help inside in order to extend the defense more out to the perimeter.

Thanks for asking this, something I wanted to post. Like cryptocurrencies, I don't really understand the specifics of a pack line defense. But after getting shredded by the likes of hot shooting ISU and IPFW teams, teams that don't appear to be world beaters other than when they play in Assembly Hall, you have to wonder if our approach is that easy to exploit and might need adjustment with the current trend towards taking 3s and spacing 4-5 guys on the perimeter who can shoot.

 

[topurdue]

It is difficult to defend the 3-point shot out of this defensive scheme, in fact, with the 4 off-the-ball defenders' main priority being to "pack" the paint area, it actually gives up the 3 point shot assuming your opponent won't hit enough of them to beat you. Last night, IPFW played the classic attack against the pack line: 1. space the floor and position shooters deep in the corners to create driving gaps, 2. dribble attack the gaps after ball reversal to draw defensive help, 3. kick the ball out for open jumpers, and 5. after the penetrator jump stops and pivots to look for the open shooter, mix in back cuts as the defensive scrambles back out to defend the perimeter.

Expect to see some version of this employed by future opponents. IPFW could put 5 dangerous shooters on the floor. I think we may need an adjustment at times against a line-up like this that sends less help inside in order to extend the defense more out to the perimeter.

This.

I found it interesting from day one that they hired a coach known for this defense scheme. It just seems with the game going the way of 3 point shooting that this wouldn't be preferred. However, I'm no expert and maybe it can work if you have players that can get out and cover the shooters. I think your biggest issue is the players in place, are too lazy, to exert the kind of defensive intensity it takes to win on a day in and day out basis. How can these guys think after beating Notre Dame that they are so good that it wouldn't take that kind of effort on a daily basis to claw out as many wins possible this year? Anyways, if it's the defensive scheme, the players, or a combination of both. IF you have a good coach he'll figure it. Unfortunately, that's probably going to take a few years to be able to judge.

 

[El Drado]

This.

I found it interesting from day one that they hired a coach known for this defense scheme. It just seems with the game going the way of 3 point shooting that this wouldn't be preferred. However, I'm no expert and maybe it can work if you have players that can get out and cover the shooters. I think your biggest issue is the players in place, are too lazy, to exert the kind of defensive intensity it takes to win on a day in and day out basis. How can these guys think after beating Notre Dame that they are so good that it wouldn't take that kind of effort on a daily basis to claw out as many wins possible this year? Anyways, if it's the defensive scheme, the players, or a combination of both. IF you have a good coach he'll figure it. Unfortunately, that's probably going to take a few years to be able to judge.

As history repeated itself with Crean, history will repeat itself with Miller.....this guy didn't forget how to coach.

 

[Tegray1]

When you are a half a step slow to begin with due to lack of effort. Also we didn't anticipate their offense very well due to lack of preparation time. That added up to open shots. Plus a guy who was 2-6 all year makes a bunch and Davis can't get out on him.

It is difficult to defend the 3-point shot out of this defensive scheme, in fact, with the 4 off-the-ball defenders' main priority being to "pack" the paint area, it actually gives up the 3 point shot assuming your opponent won't hit enough of them to beat you. Last night, IPFW played the classic attack against the pack line: 1. space the floor and position shooters deep in the corners to create driving gaps, 2. dribble attack the gaps after ball reversal to draw defensive help, 3. kick the ball out for open jumpers, and 5. after the penetrator jump stops and pivots to look for the open shooter, mix in back cuts as the defensive scrambles back out to defend the perimeter.

Expect to see some version of this employed by future opponents. IPFW could put 5 dangerous shooters on the floor. I think we may need an adjustment at times against a line-up like this that sends less help inside in order to extend the defense more out to the perimeter.

 

[Tasmanian Devil]

It is difficult to defend the 3-point shot out of this defensive scheme

Difficult, maybe. But not out of the question.

Two things increase the chance of successfully defending 3-pointers: 1) length (which is why I believe Archie has recruited the way he has so far), 2) everyone being on the same page.

What people have to realize is you're taking players not recruited for this system, who haven't been taught any kind of defense well the last 3 years (at least not emphasized). What we're seeing is a direct reflection of that.

If you think last night was bad, it would have been a whole loss worse had the previous regime still been in place.

 

[kkott]

This.

I found it interesting from day one that they hired a coach known for this defense scheme. It just seems with the game going the way of 3 point shooting that this wouldn't be preferred. However, I'm no expert and maybe it can work if you have players that can get out and cover the shooters. I think your biggest issue is the players in place, are too lazy, to exert the kind of defensive intensity it takes to win on a day in and day out basis. How can these guys think after beating Notre Dame that they are so good that it wouldn't take that kind of effort on a daily basis to claw out as many wins possible this year? Anyways, if it's the defensive scheme, the players, or a combination of both. IF you have a good coach he'll figure it. Unfortunately, that's probably going to take a few years to be able to judge.

I think the biggest issue is he plays a specific system and has inherited players from a coach who didn't value the traits that system requires. Universally we have, and have had, guys who have never shown the same interest or intensity on the defensive end as they do on offense. We have a senior guard who has had two 6 turnover games in a row, and ostensibly these weren't his worst games. I watched several times when guys made turnovers, getting beat back down the court by an opposing player dribbling the ball. That's just about effort and commitment. I'd hoped the players would adapt and embrace a new coach and system, but it seems he needs guys he's recruited to properly execute his system and he believes in it. Which means this year is probably going to be a bumpy ride. I'm an amateur, but whether it's Romeo or not, it sure seems we desperately need shooting next year and a competent capable ball handler(s). I hope he can address that or it could be another tough one.

 

[kkott]

When you are a half a step slow to begin with due to lack of effort. Also we didn't anticipate their offense very well due to lack of preparation time. That added up to open shots. Plus a guy who was 2-6 all year makes a bunch and Davis can't get out on him.

Frankly I'm tired of the 2 day turnaround excuse. We played Saturday all the way over in Indy, not England. IPFW and a whole host of other schools who played last night had to deal with that challenge too. Guess how long the turnaround is on a tourney weekend: 48 hours. Do we have no hope then?

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

Thanks for asking this, something I wanted to post. Like cryptocurrencies, I don't really understand the specifics of a pack line defense. But after getting shredded by the likes of hot shooting ISU and IPFW teams, teams that don't appear to be world beaters other than when they play in Assembly Hall, you have to wonder if our approach is that easy to exploit and might need adjustment with the current trend towards taking 3s and spacing 4-5 guys on the perimeter who can shoot.

In regular man-to-man, the off ball defenders (especially those closest to the ball) are closer to their man rather than the paint and those off ball defenders closest to the ball are defending passing lanes. In theory, pack line forces the offense to take lower percentage shots further away from the bucket, helps stop dribble penetration and protect the rim, and encourages rebounding since everybody is closer to the bucket. The obvious downside is the 3 ball is more open and teams that can shoot can take advantage.

The more athletic and lengthy the players, the better off ball defenders can close out on their man once they get the ball and reduce the downside of open outside shots.

I was hoping Archie would be able to adjust a little better against the hot shooting teams. I really don't care what year it is, beating IPFW and Indiana St. is expected.

 

[rikki-tikka-tava]

In regular man-to-man, the off ball defenders (especially those closest to the ball) are closer to their man rather than the paint and those off ball defenders closest to the ball are defending passing lanes. In theory, pack line forces the offense to take lower percentage shots further away from the bucket, helps stop dribble penetration and protect the rim, and encourages rebounding since everybody is closer to the bucket. The obvious downside is the 3 ball is more open and teams that can shoot can take advantage.

The more athletic and lengthy the players, the better off ball defenders can close out on their man once they get the ball and reduce the downside of open outside shots.

I was hoping Archie would be able to adjust a little better against the hot shooting teams. I really don't care what year it is, beating IPFW and Indiana St. is expected.

Great thread. Question: As IU's defense seemed to switch and cover pretty effectively against ND, how does what happened last night contrast to Saturday's game? Not sure who actually got to see the game since it wasn't broadcast, but wondering how much of what transpired against IUFW was a function of intensity vs. strategy, and to if the recent use of trapping that worked pretty well against ND ended up working against IU with FW.

As to losing to ISU and IUFW, thinnest of silver linings may be that at least it stayed in the IN 'family'. Doesn't really obscure the fact of being trounced, but easier to swallow than getting pasted by WKU and E. Ky. Or not.

 

[minneman]

These are very good points about the type of defense being played. How often were his teams at Dayton absolutely scorched by the 3?

 

[ATLHoosier]

Thanks for asking this, something I wanted to post. Like cryptocurrencies, I don't really understand the specifics of a pack line defense. But after getting shredded by the likes of hot shooting ISU and IPFW teams, teams that don't appear to be world beaters other than when they play in Assembly Hall, you have to wonder if our approach is that easy to exploit and might need adjustment with the current trend towards taking 3s and spacing 4-5 guys on the perimeter who can shoot.

Doesn't Virginia play a pack line defense? When I went to research the specifics of this defense, they were the team that showed up in the videos. Well, they have the best scoring defense in Division I as of Monday's updated statistics (through ten games, opponents averaging 53.3 ppg.), so, apparently, it works, as long as you've got players with enough brains to do what they're supposed to. Virginia is, however, ranked 33rd in 3 pt. field goal defense (opponents have 61 makes on 207 attempts - 29.5 percent). I believe, at this point, I'd take that.

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

Great thread. Question: As IU's defense seemed to switch and cover pretty effectively against ND, how does what happened last night contrast to Saturday's game? Not sure who actually got to see the game since it wasn't broadcast, but wondering how much of what transpired against IUFW was a function of intensity vs. strategy, and to if the recent use of trapping that worked pretty well against ND ended up working against IU with FW.

As to losing to ISU and IUFW, thinnest of silver linings may be that at least it stayed in the IN 'family'. Doesn't really obscure the fact of being trounced, but easier to swallow than getting pasted by WKU and E. Ky. Or not.

ND had some guys that could shoot: Gibbs and Farrell come to mind, and Gibbs got some shots. But, they didn't shoot at a heroic clip. IPFW had a stretch where they hit 6-7 3's in a row in the 2nd half and it seemed like every one of their players could hit from the outside. The 3's were pretty open that IPFW hit. IU's defense was totally exploited.

I don't think IU could have guarded a middle school team last night. They appeared gassed, uninterested, total lack of effort. Obviously, IU's pack line defense didn't do any favors. Night and day difference from Notre Dame. This team obviously lacked the focus, ability, and energy to bounce back from a big game. These are Crean's players, and some certainly struggle with consistent effort, especially on the defensive end. The turnovers were awful: totally careless with the ball.

I think IPFW did a good job of limiting Morgan and Davis and forcing IU to shoot, which IU struggles with. A pack line defense is perfect against IU.

 

[ORG]

When you are a half a step slow to begin with due to lack of effort. Also we didn't anticipate their offense very well due to lack of preparation time. That added up to open shots. Plus a guy who was 2-6 all year makes a bunch and Davis can't get out on him.

This team had no experience at the start of the season playing this defense. So, more than most teams it needs more preparation time to compensate for its poor defensive play.

 

[Tegray1]

Remember these are players used to playing 8 teams with over 300 rpi in preseason. Not used to quick turnaround after tough games.

Frankly I'm tired of the 2 day turnaround excuse. We played Saturday all the way over in Indy, not England. IPFW and a whole host of other schools who played last night had to deal with that challenge too. Guess how long the turnaround is on a tourney weekend: 48 hours. Do we have no hope then?

 

[5morebanners]

I've said before that the pack line is fine, but needs to be adjusted based on game flow. It's stubborn to think otherwise.

Rather than a 100% effort to protect the paint and penetration etc, why not extend the perimeter D a few feet? Especially when they are spacing us out, reversing the ball quickly and hitting over 50%.

I see helping on penetration, when it's clearly not justified. Meaning, the on ball defender has not been beaten. There's a shooter in the corner who's hit 4 of 5 and we're going to triple team the ball when it gets to the paint? Blows my mind.

How about just staying in front of your man with better weak side rotation? Offense is pretty simple against us. Drive the ball and kick.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Difficult, maybe. But not out of the question.

Two things increase the chance of successfully defending 3-pointers: 1) length (which is why I believe Archie has recruited the way he has so far), 2) everyone being on the same page.

What people have to realize is you're taking players not recruited for this system, who haven't been taught any kind of defense well the last 3 years (at least not emphasized). What we're seeing is a direct reflection of that.

If you think last night was bad, it would have been a whole loss worse had the previous regime still been in place.

Yeah, I just can’t get all worked up about anything this season. I tried, it’s not happening

 

[cshartle123]

The scheme is fine for college basketball. We’ll see if Archie can recruit to it, and teach it well enough to win big. That’s a whole different conversation than last night. We have players learning a new system, and so they aren’t able to anticipate anything. We gave up 29 points off of turnovers, and were unable to establish a post presence against a small team. We should have been able to play ball control, and win by twenty. Instead, our guards got handled and all of a sudden we were in a track meet against a HPER pickup team.

 

[kkott]

Remember these are players used to playing 8 teams with over 300 rpi in preseason. Not used to quick turnaround after tough games.

See my earlier post. Tourney teams won't be ranked in the 300s either. It's an excuse and not even a good one. Not knowing the system well enough, motivation and desire, lack of shooting, etc... to me are worth considering. A 48 turnaround for 20 yo kids, when playing a team on your home floor that traveled farther and also had a 48 hr turnaround doesn't hold water to me.

 

[IU? I'm Fine]

Whoa, some of the posts are spot on. Some are missing what is going on. And this is a great thread. Thanks to chaboom for starting it.

Packline is theoretical line that is a couple of feet inside of the three-point line. Defenders, except for the on-the-ball one, stay inside that line. In theory, they focus on limiting passing angles, helping defend against the drive and stopping anyone from getting to the baseline. The defender on the ball applies pressure and tries to cut off angles for a post entry pass. As others have stated, the intent is to rebound and force all shots inside of the arc to be contested and pressured. But the next point is where IU is deficient at least against IPFW and ISU...it is paramount that defenders must be in position to jump out to defend their man whenever he gets the ball.

The latter is a killer. Quick changes in direction, reversals, etc. keep players that have gone into the pack in or near the lane to jump out to a shooter. Being slow or unaware or out of position...anything..and the packline falls apart by having two defenders outside the line...or no player pressuring the shooter beyond the arc. Some say that defense doesn't impact significantly the three-point shot percentage...but it may affect the three-point attempts.

So do better conferences have better three-point shooters? Yes

So do some teams excel against the packline by game planning three point shots? Yes

What about Virginia and their packline? They had a top 5 defense a few years ago, why? Because of unbelievable defensive rebounding and opponent's poor 2-point shooting. They force more threes but they are contested.

How does that work? They execute better. Closing on the shooter is critical. Preventing penetration is critical. Sloppy, slow defense is suicide.

What else? If the opponent's big guys can step out and are a threat to hit from outside then that opens up a lot. Plus if they do anything to get another player open...

Some 2-3 defenses like Syracuse's gives up a lot of 3's just like the packline.

Guess what really is important? A team needs exceptional guards. And all players must execute quickly.

Other than not having shooters or players willing to put the effort into the defense day in and day out... the fix likely will take a couple of years.

 

[phattybrown]

It is difficult to defend the 3-point shot out of this defensive scheme, in fact, with the 4 off-the-ball defenders' main priority being to "pack" the paint area, it actually gives up the 3 point shot assuming your opponent won't hit enough of them to beat you. Last night, IPFW played the classic attack against the pack line: 1. space the floor and position shooters deep in the corners to create driving gaps, 2. dribble attack the gaps after ball reversal to draw defensive help, 3. kick the ball out for open jumpers, and 5. after the penetrator jump stops and pivots to look for the open shooter, mix in back cuts as the defensive scrambles back out to defend the perimeter.

Expect to see some version of this employed by future opponents. IPFW could put 5 dangerous shooters on the floor. I think we may need an adjustment at times against a line-up like this that sends less help inside in order to extend the defense more out to the perimeter.

It’s all about communication and body position. Virginia is strictly Pack line and is giving up 29% from 3 and 31% last year. Length is a big help, quick feet and athleticism is a big help, good on ball defense is one
of the biggest factors. We get beat often in a near straight line attack, defender opening the gate.... when this happens the help has farther to travel as well as the help tends to trim their hips into the drive. This puts the gap player out of body position to recover for a good close out. Pack line will be effective when you have the length and agility as well as more time spent learning the little things.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

Whoa, some of the posts are spot on. Some are missing what is going on. And this is a great thread. Thanks to chaboom for starting it.

Packline is theoretical line that is a couple of feet inside of the three-point line. Defenders, except for the on-the-ball one, stay inside that line. In theory, they focus on limiting passing angles, helping defend against the drive and stopping anyone from getting to the baseline. The defender on the ball applies pressure and tries to cut off angles for a post entry pass. As others have stated, the intent is to rebound and force all shots inside of the arc to be contested and pressured. But the next point is where IU is deficient at least against IPFW and ISU...it is paramount that defenders must be in position to jump out to defend their man whenever he gets the ball.

The latter is a killer. Quick changes in direction, reversals, etc. keep players that have gone into the pack in or near the lane to jump out to a shooter. Being slow or unaware or out of position...anything..and the packline falls apart by having two defenders outside the line...or no player pressuring the shooter beyond the arc. Some say that defense doesn't impact significantly the three-point shot percentage...but it may affect the three-point attempts.

So do better conferences have better three-point shooters? Yes

So do some teams excel against the packline by game planning three point shots? Yes

What about Virginia and their packline? They had a top 5 defense a few years ago, why? Because of unbelievable defensive rebounding and opponent's poor 2-point shooting. They force more threes but they are contested.

How does that work? They execute better. Closing on the shooter is critical. Preventing penetration is critical. Sloppy, slow defense is suicide.

What else? If the opponent's big guys can step out and are a threat to hit from outside then that opens up a lot. Plus if they do anything to get another player open...

Some 2-3 defenses like Syracuse's gives up a lot of 3's just like the packline.

Guess what really is important? A team needs exceptional guards. And all players must execute quickly.

Other than not having shooters or players willing to put the effort into the defense day in and day out... the fix likely will take a couple of years.

During my AAU years I attended a seminar on PL by a couple of guys that had worked for Bennett. We had success with primarily due to the nature of the AAU game and kids wanting to showboat. There are too many good shooters today (particularly with the guards he has and lack of length). for my vote to go PL, but this is CAMs approach.

 

[Chasrich]

It is difficult to defend the 3-point shot out of this defensive scheme, in fact, with the 4 off-the-ball defenders' main priority being to "pack" the paint area, it actually gives up the 3 point shot assuming your opponent won't hit enough of them to beat you. Last night, IPFW played the classic attack against the pack line: 1. space the floor and position shooters deep in the corners to create driving gaps, 2. dribble attack the gaps after ball reversal to draw defensive help, 3. kick the ball out for open jumpers, and 5. after the penetrator jump stops and pivots to look for the open shooter, mix in back cuts as the defensive scrambles back out to defend the perimeter.

Expect to see some version of this employed by future opponents. IPFW could put 5 dangerous shooters on the floor. I think we may need an adjustment at times against a line-up like this that sends less help inside in order to extend the defense more out to the perimeter.

Wisconsin uses the pack line defense and they have no trouble guarding the three

 

[zibby43]

Serious question.

Was watching the Fort Wayne game with a friend that is a good coach.

He didn't seriously suggest this until Fort Wayne was shooting a higher 3-point percentage than IU's FT percentage, so he tried to be patient, but why in the world didn't IU try a zone at some point?

Force their offense to adjust and fix the fact that we were getting so lost out there that shooters were open gym wide-open.

Or at least adjust on how they were handling the screens?

Thanks in advance.

 

[frikkenfrakken]

I didn't see the ISU game, but the FW game was a combination of problems. The communication on pick and roll and pick and pop was awful. It was often two guys lackadaisically chasing the ball without pressuring it, leaving a shooter or roller wide open. The on-ball defender is supposed to get over the screen, the hedger is just supposed to keep the ball handler from getting turned downhill, and everyone is supposed to bust ass to recover. It requires high effort from everyone involved. We show that in spurts, but not in whole games. When we don't show it, we look pretty bad. I think FW scored almost 60 on us in the 2nd half.

In order to execute the scheme properly, you cannot over help (which they still sometimes do, and used to do incessantly under Crean as well) and you have to close out on shooters effectively but under control. IU's closeouts are pretty inconsistent. Johnson is capable, and usually willing. Green as well, and McRoberts usually. But the rest don't seem to get it. They either fly by (which just ruins the entire scheme) or close out slowly, leaving the shot uncontested.

And yes, as other mentioned, it helps if you have long athletic perimeter defenders. We don't have much in that regard. Johnson is the best, but has some problems, the rest are worse.

These guys aren't physically suited for the scheme, don't seem to have bought in, haven't learned all the fundamentals of it yet (and seem to default to Crean's bad habits), aren't communicating the way they should, and aren't playing all-out all the time on defense. Some of it is on the bad habits Crean allowed to fester, some of it is on the players (and their crappy effort), and some of it is on Archie, I think, for failing to get these guys buying in. It shouldn't be hard to pitch the scheme, it works great at Virginia. On the occasions where we've put forth good effort and fundamentals, the scheme has worked well. I think we held Iowa to about 20 points in the second half of that game, IIRC.

Hopefully this was a wake-up call, but they really ought not to have needed one, considering the ISU game, and the FW game last year. It's gonna take a significant improvement to scratch our way into the NCAA's. Seems unlikely with 2 bad losses on our resume already.

 

[frikkenfrakken]

Serious question.

Was watching the Fort Wayne game with a friend that is a good coach.

He didn't seriously suggest this until Fort Wayne was shooting a higher 3-point percentage than IU's FT percentage, so he tried to be patient, but why in the world didn't IU try a zone at some point?

Force their offense to adjust and fix the fact that we were getting so lost out there that shooters were open gym wide-open.

Or at least adjust on how they were handling the screens?

Thanks in advance.

That's an Archie preference thing. He explained in his radio show that his coaching philosophy is to do one thing really well, rather than being mediocre at 2 or 3 defenses. So, you won't see them play any zone. It's packline, 24-7-365...if you can't play it effectively, you won't play. That's why McRoberts time has gone up--his effort level is closer to what Archie expects.

 

[zibby43]

That's an Archie preference thing. He explained in his radio show that his coaching philosophy is to do one thing really well, rather than being mediocre at 2 or 3 defenses. So, you won't see them play any zone. It's packline, 24-7-365...if you can't play it effectively, you won't play. That's why McRoberts time has gone up--his effort level is closer to what Archie expects.

Thanks for the info. That makes sense. Was just surprised they didn't do something to stop the bleeding for that one game.

It's going to take some time learning and perfecting the pack-line. Some of the current personnel may never "master" it in the time they have left remaining.

Not all Hoosier fans are patient.

I'm patient.

 

[Chasrich]

That's an Archie preference thing. He explained in his radio show that his coaching philosophy is to do one thing really well, rather than being mediocre at 2 or 3 defenses. So, you won't see them play any zone. It's packline, 24-7-365...if you can't play it effectively, you won't play. That's why McRoberts time has gone up--his effort level is closer to what Archie expects.

You have to be able to do more than one thing well. Teams are always looking to take away what you do well and you need to adjust.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

That's an Archie preference thing. He explained in his radio show that his coaching philosophy is to do one thing really well, rather than being mediocre at 2 or 3 defenses. So, you won't see them play any zone. It's packline, 24-7-365...if you can't play it effectively, you won't play. That's why McRoberts time has gone up--his effort level is closer to what Archie expects.

I did not hear his comments but that was the discussion we had at the game. Your first thought is why not switch to zone, but he didn't and was apparently willing to let the game play out forcing the kids to work the plan. They have demonstrated success in the scheme but only when the motor is on and it clearly wasn't Monday.

 

[Tscurlo]

Universally we have, and have had, guys who have never shown the same interest or intensity on the defensive end as they do on offense.

Hmmmm...... kinda sounds like the same situation Norman Dale had in the movie Hoosiers.

 

[kkott]

Hmmmm...... kinda sounds like the same situation Norman Dale had in the movie Hoosiers.

And I guess I should have clarified, but I meant during the Crean years. He just didn't value defensive minded feisty players like the Scott twins, etc... It was a shame because Troy Williams and Yogi both should have been holy terrors on D.

 

[frikkenfrakken]

You have to be able to do more than one thing well. Teams are always looking to take away what you do well and you need to adjust.

I don't think that is true when it comes to defense in college basketball. There are plenty of teams who only use one scheme and just try to do it very well.

 

[trailrunner]

I don't think that is true when it comes to defense in college basketball. There are plenty of teams who only use one scheme and just try to do it very well.

You are correct. RMK perfected man to man and only played that defense. But if you don’t have the athletes a zone can neutralize the opponents bigs. I believe that the man to man that Buckner, Wilkerson, May, Green and Benson utilized is the best defense I have ever seen before or since.

 

[Chasrich]

You are correct. RMK perfected man to man and only played that defense. But if you don’t have the athletes a zone can neutralize the opponents bigs. I believe that the man to man that Buckner, Wilkerson, May, Green and Benson utilized is the best defense I have ever seen before or since.

I guess when you have the best starting 5 of all time you can run pretty much any defense you want.. what a team

 

[Hoosier_Phenom]

It is difficult to defend the 3-point shot out of this defensive scheme, in fact, with the 4 off-the-ball defenders' main priority being to "pack" the paint area, it actually gives up the 3 point shot assuming your opponent won't hit enough of them to beat you. Last night, IPFW played the classic attack against the pack line: 1. space the floor and position shooters deep in the corners to create driving gaps, 2. dribble attack the gaps after ball reversal to draw defensive help, 3. kick the ball out for open jumpers, and 5. after the penetrator jump stops and pivots to look for the open shooter, mix in back cuts as the defensive scrambles back out to defend the perimeter.

Expect to see some version of this employed by future opponents. IPFW could put 5 dangerous shooters on the floor. I think we may need an adjustment at times against a line-up like this that sends less help inside in order to extend the defense more out to the perimeter.

Im sorry but doesn't Virginia play something similar to the pack line defense and they are good on defense just not so good at scoring.Our guys get too far down in the paint and can't get out in time to stop the 3's.

 

[kkott]

Im sorry but doesn't Virginia play something similar to the pack line defense and they are good on defense just not so good at scoring.Our guys get too far down in the paint and can't get out in time to stop the 3's.

I don't think they do get too far down (that's the plan), I think they don't comprehend how hard they have to work on D to anticipate, react quickly/instinctively and close out aggressively without getting out of position. I truly don't think some of that will be corrected until Archie has kids he's selected to play this system. Think about how Georgetown, Syracuse, Lville and WVU, all great defensive teams at times, had a profile of the kids they had in their system. I think Crean was an offensive minded coach who sometimes flapped his lips about D, but I am confident they spent 75% of their practice time on O. I remember repeatedly watching players appear to rotate over to help on D and thinking: "they are too late, they'll never get there to help!". Of course, they weren't trying to help, they were running to the basket to get the ball out of the net (again, I'm confident Crean coached that he didn't want the ball to hit the floor) to inbound it and get up the floor FAST! When you have kids more concerned about inbounding the ball than stopping the basket, those kids are going to be a challenge to convert to a defensive mindset.

 

[Katrina Hoosier]

Here is what I observed at the FW game. 1). Poor defensive spacing away from ball. No ball-you-man spacing to maximize help and be in passing lanes. 2). Overcommitting on the ball screen hedge and help. 3). Weakside defenders have their backs to the ball while chaser cutters. Many times they create an open driving lane to the bucket. 4). Rare overplaying ball handler’s strong arm.
Call this defense what you will....it’s simply a sagging man2man, you can’t defend well if you don’t understand the simple geometry of the game. To most good players, it is second nature. If you reach D1 level and can’t “see” that geometry, it will be difficult to pick up.

 

[birdforbogey]

Don't really care what defense they play, as long as THEY play it.

 

[kkott]

Here is what I observed at the FW game. 1). Poor defensive spacing away from ball. No ball-you-man spacing to maximize help and be in passing lanes. 2). Overcommitting on the ball screen hedge and help. 3). Weakside defenders have their backs to the ball while chaser cutters. Many times they create an open driving lane to the bucket. 4). Rare overplaying ball handler’s strong arm.
Call this defense what you will....it’s simply a sagging man2man, you can’t defend well if you don’t understand the simple geometry of the game. To most good players, it is second nature. If you reach D1 level and can’t “see” that geometry, it will be difficult to pick up.

I'm still trying to understand "the rules" of pack line, but my understanding is that it doesn't utilize ball-you-man spacing (which frankly, I struggle with), at least more than 1 pass away, to overprotect the paint. That's one of my concerns overall, since that probably leaves you vulnerable to the 3, which is the direction of the game currently, as emphasized by ISU and IPFW. (after watching those 2 games: IDNTU.. I Damn Near Threw Up!). Anyway, I'm convinced our overall problem all year will be effort and commitment to closing out. I think now they struggle to understand how quick they have to be, not only to do it, but to anticipate it. Then, when they try, they are closing out too late and fast and guys can go by them. I doubt this team will ever be considered "good" at it, I'm just hoping for competent.

Of course, Archie could try and modify his system to match his personnel, but I think his feeling is he needs to establish his system at IU as a foundation. I think that's fine, even if it sacrifices a few W's this year. You have to establish a culture imo, and that's what he's trying to do. Of course as time goes on, I think good coaches do adjust and think that's what has made K so great and also what finally pushed Roy over the hump from having great rosters at KU who didn't win NCs, to winning them at UNC. I felt he began to adjust more. For now, I don't think CAM will and we'll just have to live with some of the frustrations for this season. And, it if yields a better overall result, I'm fine with that.