No. A team with bad man D principles will be bad in a zone too, not to mention likely even worse rebounding the ball, where IL is very good I believe (offensive glass). But, I do agree we are bad defensively, and the zone hasn't looked horrid, so I'd definetly keep working on it and mix it in some, just to try and confuse things.
Heard him say after he stopped coaching that he'd have used a zone defending inbounds if he were doing it over.
Agreed, if IU defends the shot in m2m. They don't so you lose nothing but you defend the post better and in the case of IU, actually improve rebounding.
This was their best defense they have played all year.
This is exactly right. A team like Purdue would eat the zone alive as they have the inside and outside shooters.
Absolutely agree. in a Zone, players tend not to move their feet effectively to cover space. In addition to your outside on ball defenders, the guys inside and underneath need to know how to play certain angles to cut off space and provide support. In addition, Defenders need to know how to find a man to block out on Defensive Rebounds, which is more difficult than in Man to Man. A Zone works best if You have outside defenders with long arms and wingspan who can cut off passing lanes and angles (e,g, Syracuse).
