I just can't fathom why TC goes to a zone...we are awful at it. I prefer our bad man to man to our awful zone.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Zone
- Thread starter 3sportcoach
- Start date
Some teams prove that a good zone will work aka Syracuse. I prefer man, but it is good to have a good zone in your pocket.
So happy CWebber called zone a gimmick. Exactly what it is. If you're the better team man up. No need to zone. Never get why fans wanna zone.
I like him as an analyst. Does a good job. Disagree about the zone. I'm a man guy. But most coaches have 100 sets vs man. Limited in the ways to attack a zone. Easier to limit.
If we actually played defense instead of praying for wide open misses we'd be elite. But if we went to an all zone defense I would be upset. I don't understand how any fan base could enjoy and put up with it.
I imagine it's got to get redundant to be a Syracuse fan for that reason -- though I'm sure all the winning and top recruits probably eases the boredom.
in favor of a zone only as an alternative. In other words a team has to recognize your change in defense and make adjustments. After they have done that, change the defensive set-up back. Disruption of the offensive flow would be the goal. Plus it makes the other team have to practice against it. More time away from practicing against one known defensive set. Like most on here, I prefer man-to-man as the primary defense, but I do like to see us occasionally go to the zone.
Bigger question from the outside looking in is why would you think TC can get a team to play zone when he can't get them to play man. He's all about scoring not stopping the other team. IU will win the majority of its' games if it can get the opponent to engage in a shoot out but not if the opponent is a strong D oriented team.
How often has a team like Maryland been the better team in league play the last 10 years? I would say at least 40-50% of the time they weren't. Zone defense isn't a gimmick in basketball or defense. I agree it's an alternative strategy. Always a time and place for zone, especially against a team that can't shoot.
This is amusing, our fans bitch and moan because Cal refuses to zone.
If JB gets better on D and Bryant is a force in the middle IU should be able to man up the full 40.
If JB gets better on D and Bryant is a force in the middle IU should be able to man up the full 40.
IU played zone because of its lack of size to rebound out of a man to man defense. Also had no rim protector without Perea or Holt in the game. This year should be a marked improvement on defense, But I expect the IU offense to still be the strength of this year's team.
Of course offense will be the strength of this team: it will be the strength of any TC coached team because it's what he thinks about and coaches 75% of the time. We don't end up with projects like April, Gellon, or Priller because of their defensive promise, it's because CTC sees something in them that he thinks he can leverage on offense.
Good defense is good defense for the most part: moving your feet, communicating, staying in front of your man, blocking out and helping out are principles of good defense. Louisville is tough regardless of whether they are in zone or man, because that's how they're coached and because their coach values toughness and defense and recruits players who can help there, even if they might not have great offensive tools. Same with Butler. And if their players don't give effort on D: they become assistant coaches on the bench.
At this level I think employing both to a degree is the right answer just to be tougher to prepare for and to remain flexible for your roster, other teams and situations. I prefer man but I could care less if we employed a tough aggressive zone. Watching an IU team give maximum effort on D and value the ball would not only be enjoyable, it would make us a much better team and program.
Good defense is good defense for the most part: moving your feet, communicating, staying in front of your man, blocking out and helping out are principles of good defense. Louisville is tough regardless of whether they are in zone or man, because that's how they're coached and because their coach values toughness and defense and recruits players who can help there, even if they might not have great offensive tools. Same with Butler. And if their players don't give effort on D: they become assistant coaches on the bench.
At this level I think employing both to a degree is the right answer just to be tougher to prepare for and to remain flexible for your roster, other teams and situations. I prefer man but I could care less if we employed a tough aggressive zone. Watching an IU team give maximum effort on D and value the ball would not only be enjoyable, it would make us a much better team and program.
Similar threads
