Why Not a Zone?

[drquigley]

With one of the worst defenses in D1 and having just given up 101 points to the BE cellar dweller why doesn't PE consider giving up on our man defense and try playing 2-3 zone? Josh and Jamorko could be tough on the wings and Jesse couldn't play any worse in the middle. Mackinjo up front with Jalen and Kaleb/Blair subbing. Face it we don't have the players capable of playing the kind of aggressive man that PE seems to love. I know PE has tried it during a few games but maybe its time to commit to it. Thoughts?

[bigelephant]

IT'S TOO LATE IN THE SEASON TO GO TO A TOTALLY NEW DEFENSE BUT HAVING SAID THAT WE CERTAINLY COULD MIX IT UP WITH A LITTLE MORE ZONE DEFENSE JUST TO GET THE OTHER TEAM OUT OF SYNC FOR A LITTLE WHILE. 2-3 WOULD BE THE ONE.

[FrazierFanatic]

You can't play substantial zone unless you get all 5 guys to commit to it, to defend their area of the zone and move together with discipline. We have not shown the ability to do any of those. If one guy slacks off, or is slow on a rotation, or rashly tries for a steal and misses, you just watch a dunkfest.

It is also hard to work freshmen into a zone defense, triply so when you start 3 of them.

[Ranch Dressing]

I’ve always felt that 2-3 zones are tough to pull off with two short guards guarding the three point line.

Our guards aren’t super short, but they are on the small side.

[vv83]

I doubt that Govan would be noticeably better playing zone. He can't move laterally, is generally slow footed, has poor defensive instincts, can't jump from a standing start, and plays hard, focused D only intermittently. That combination doesn't work in any form of defense.

We have been a bad defensive team for 4 years. Govan has been our main center for 4 years. there are other defensive issues, but I'll be interested to see what our D looks like with a more mobile, athletic center. Yurtseven probably is not a high level defender, but he is a quicker, more athletic player than Govan. We'll have to see if he has better defensive instincts and provides more extensive defense/focus. Sadly, it won't take much of any of these qualities for him to be a better defender than Govan.

[bigelephant]

Mar 7, 2019 23:10:07 GMT -5 vv83 said:

I doubt that Govan would be noticeably better playing zone. He can't move laterally, is generally slow footed, has poor defensive instincts, can't jump from a standing start, and plays hard, focused D only intermittently. That combination doesn't work in any form of defense.

We have been a bad defensive team for 4 years. Govan has been our main center for 4 years. there are other defensive issues, but I'll be interested to see what our D looks like with a more mobile, athletic center. Yurtseven probably is not a high level defender, but he is a quicker, more athletic player than Govan. We'll have to see if he has better defensive instincts and provides more extensive defense/focus. Sadly, it won't take much of any of these qualities for him to be a better defender than Govan.

Rim defense which I think Seven and a couple of our new bigs will bring.

[SFHoya99]

It's worth noting, that even after last night's brutal 3pt barrage, the Hoyas still shoot better in conference play than their opponents. It used to be more noticeable, but last night was bad.

Instead, our two biggest problems on D are that: a) we don't cause ANY turnovers at all and b) we can't defend the rim (7th in BE in 2pt defense).

That does imply that maybe we should have gone zone more to defend the rim, but I do think this team has struggled enough learning one defense; perhaps two was one too many.

[blueandgray]

Mar 7, 2019 22:56:31 GMT -5 Ranch Dressing said:

I’ve always felt that 2-3 zones are tough to pull off with two short guards guarding the three point line.

Our guards aren’t super short, but they are on the small side.

This!

[HOYAPLAYA]

Mar 7, 2019 22:56:31 GMT -5 Ranch Dressing said:

I’ve always felt that 2-3 zones are tough to pull off with two short guards guarding the three point line.

Our guards aren’t super short, but they are on the small side.

Exactly. It was too late in the season but I suggested a couple of weeks back that we should consider implementing more of a 3-2 trapping zone next year. Without length up top, the 2-3 zone defense is really ineffective with all of the three point shooters in today's game. I'd put Mac up top in the middle with Akinjo/Leblanc on the wings and Pickett/Yurt down low. If Moseley is going to be our starting 3, then we'd have to swap him to one of the top wing positions and move Leblanc down low. This can also be a gimmicky defense that you run after made free throws or after a team breaks the press and has chewed up some of the shot clock already. Either way, playing zone defensive principles take more discipline and effort than man to man so we need to figure out how to guard better around the perimeter with better awareness of distance to provide when the ball is on the other side of the court. We are absolutely terrible at this in our man to man defense so just throwing a zone at it is not necessarily going to solve the problem.

[hoyanewyorka]

How about 3-2 Zone, 2-1-2, Diamond & 1, Box and 1, 1-3-1. These are all zones I feel PE needs to implement more often when the situation calls for it.

[NCHoya]

Even with good instruction, I am not convinced it would have worked with the personnel this year. But next year, this is a must for Ewing to add. I would like them to be competent just enough to play it intermittently to change things up. I agree the short guards up top are not ideal, but it does not mean you cannot try it or sub in Jagan or someone else for a bit while you try to screw up the opponent's rhythm on offense.

After 2 years of crap D, I would hope Ewing sees the defense cannot remain "as is", because you cannot rely on 3 freshman bigs to solve the problem. He needs to add tactical options. He has such a rich network of mentors and friends throughout basketball, get some informed opinions.

[NCHoya]

Mar 7, 2019 23:27:26 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

It's worth noting, that even after last night's brutal 3pt barrage, the Hoyas still shoot better in conference play than their opponents. It used to be more noticeable, but last night was bad.

Instead, our two biggest problems on D are that: a) we don't cause ANY turnovers at all and b) we can't defend the rim (7th in BE in 2pt defense).

That does imply that maybe we should have gone zone more to defend the rim, but I do think this team has struggled enough learning one defense; perhaps two was one too many.

A mobile big on defense could help solve both problems. Obviously, an active big can help defend the rim, but it also allows the guards to play more aggressive and take more chances since they know their man is going to be challenged if he gets by them. This year, that was not possible.

[njhoya78]

Mar 7, 2019 22:41:51 GMT -5 bigelephant said:

IT'S TOO LATE IN THE SEASON TO GO TO A TOTALLY NEW DEFENSE BUT HAVING SAID THAT WE CERTAINLY COULD MIX IT UP WITH A LITTLE MORE ZONE DEFENSE JUST TO GET THE OTHER TEAM OUT OF SYNC FOR A LITTLE WHILE. 2-3 WOULD BE THE ONE.

This. Without the capitalized shouting.

[prhoya]

Mar 8, 2019 9:44:00 GMT -5 NCHoya said:

Even with good instruction, I am not convinced it would have worked with the personnel this year. But next year, this is a must for Ewing to add. I would like them to be competent just enough to play it intermittently to change things up. I agree the short guards up top are not ideal, but it does not mean you cannot try it or sub in Jagan or someone else for a bit while you try to screw up the opponent's rhythm on offense.

After 2 years of crap D, I would hope Ewing sees the defense cannot remain "as is", because you cannot rely on 3 freshman bigs to solve the problem. He needs to add tactical options. He has such a rich network of mentors and friends throughout basketball, get some informed opinions.

No need to worry about how ideal the short guards up top are because vs Creighton, Pat used Pickett up top along with Akinjo, and Jagan at the left wing of the zone on the same side as Pickett. Pat will mix it up. He just needs better mixers.

[drquigley]

The biggest critique of a zone is that it is ineffective against good 3 point shooting teams. But as we've seen the past several years playing our lousy man defense still winds up leaving wide open 3 point shooters. Against teams that have good ball handlers/shooters and are trained in setting screens for these shooters playing a zone shouldn't hurt us any more than playing man. Especially considering the personnel we have on this team. I agree that maybe next year minus Govan things will be different and I really believe that PE has been recruiting bigs with this in mind. From what I saw of Carter on Wednesday he looked lost and outclassed playing man.

[jctnhoya4ever]

I would be pressing them a lot they have problems breaking pressure defenses. They have been turning the ball over a bunch the last 3 games. So we don’t have any thing to loose press them like crazy, then play man to man switching to a zone a couple times to catch them off guard maybe.

[RockawayHoya]

This year's team has struggled to play zone. Part of it is overall athleticism, or lack thereof. Part of it is just personnel issues; we don't have the size at key spots to make the zone as effective as it could be.

A larger part of it is coaching. The instruction is not there right now for this team to understand what to do in zone, what to try to accomplish in forcing an offense to do, how to communicate, etc. You'd think with at least one person on the staff that has had extensive experience with it that we could be better than we have been. But we're not. That's a problem.

On top of that, when we do go zone, it's always done as a last-ditch attempt to try to change momentum after we've fallen behind by a lot. It's never used to make the opponent uncomfortable or to confuse them. Any opposing coach worth his salt will know to warn his team to expect zone if they've just gone on a big run to put us down double digits. The same goes for the press. Because both are predictable, both are less effective than they could be.

I agree we need to at least be able to show a competent zone in spurts next year. The inability to adapt to certain game situations that necessitate it will hold this team back until this issue is resolved.

Minor side note about pressing: the ability to press is entirely dependent on whether or not you can score. We couldn't press against Depaul because we couldn't score. The bigger issue for tomorrow will be executing smartly in the halfcourt offense and making sure we at least play them even in the transition game. Don't do both and we lose for sure.

[professorhoya]

Zoned not effective with two small guys up top and no Eraser in the middle. Basically you are just going to get torched up the middle and by wide open 3s.

[Ranch Dressing]

Mar 8, 2019 11:49:46 GMT -5 professorhoya said:

Zoned not effective with two small guys up top and no Eraser in the middle. Basically you are just going to get torched up the middle and by wide open 3s.

Agreed. Pickett and LeBlanc could be excellent in a 2-3 zone with their length and athleticism. Mac, James, and Jessie not so much.

[HometownHoya]

Mar 8, 2019 15:12:41 GMT -5 Ranch Dressing said:

Mar 8, 2019 11:49:46 GMT -5 professorhoya said:

Zoned not effective with two small guys up top and no Eraser in the middle. Basically you are just going to get torched up the middle and by wide open 3s.

Agreed. Pickett and LeBlanc could be excellent in a 2-3 zone with their length and athleticism. Mac, James, and Jessie not so much.

I do like the idea of the 3-2 zone. Put our shortest defender in the middle then the best big defender behind the shortest wing defender. Only risk is giving up quick dumps downlow to a big that has our defender screened off. Could be an interesting look though with two longer guys if we have two of Yurt7/Timmy/Wahab/Wilson on the court.