I couldn't watch the game...

[DenverSooner]

There were at least a half dozen made 3's that OU would be happy to let any team shoot whenever they wanted to shoot them and as often as they want to shoot them.

I agree, there were several shots that did not seem problematic to me other than they went in. What I did not like was giving up offensive rebounds and a few of the switches but again, I thought the bigger problem was offensively OU struggled and then the defensive struggles followed. If OU continues to score in the last 10 minutes of each half like OU scored in the first 10 minutes of the half they win 120-90 and this assumes that UTA doesn't speed up and turn the ball over a lot.

 

[ChongoChingi]

Do you think we might see them start to soften up on the new rules now that we are getting closer to conference play? They pushed them hard in the beginning of the season and now they are going to find some middle ground?

 

[oSuJeff97]

Do you think we might see them start to soften up on the new rules now that we are getting closer to conference play?

I hope not.

Like Ada said earlier, it punishes the teams that have adjusted. It's certainly going to punish a guard-oriented team like OSU.

It's no coincidence that our worst game (vs. Memphis in Orlando) was one where the refs swallowed the whistles.

The first time we played Memphis, there were a total of 55 fouls called... 26 on Memphis.

The second time we played, there were a total of 20 fouls called... 9 on Memphis. That was ridiculous.

You can't tell me that the two teams dialed down their physical play THAT MUCH in the span of a week.

The two games were just called WILDLY differently.

 

[AdaSooner]

Do you think we might see them start to soften up on the new rules now that we are getting closer to conference play? They pushed them hard in the beginning of the season and now they are going to find some middle ground?

The "new" rules were sold as a permanent change that went beyond the typical emphasis on the rules we have seen in years past. All I know is that the way the OU-UTA game was called is what some of us were afraid would happen after the season got underway. Time will tell if the officials will be required to stay the course, or eventually revert back to the way the games used to be called. For my part, I'm hoping last night's game was an anomaly.

 

[AdaSooner]

I hope not.

Like Ada said earlier, it punishes the teams that have adjusted. It's certainly going to punish a guard-oriented team like OSU.

It's no coincidence that our worst game (vs. Memphis in Orlando) was one where the refs swallowed the whistles.

The first time we played Memphis, there were a total of 55 fouls called... 26 on Memphis.

The second time we played, there were a total of 20 fouls called... 9 on Memphis. That was ridiculous. You can't tell me that the two teams dialed down their physical play THAT MUCH in the span of a week.
The two games were just called WILDLY differently.

Wow! No way both teams cleaned it up on defense to the tune of 35 fewer fouls from one game to the next. This is exactly what some of us thought would happen. I'll buy the idea that the players are adjusting to the way the games are being called, and the result is fewer fouls. Just not when the difference is 20 to 35 fouls lower than the norm. That has to be a change in the officiating. Sure hope I'm wrong.

 

[Kewllane]

I didn't really understand the move to zone. I mean what is the point of a zone? It's to force them to shoot from the outside and not get the ball inside. Well, UTA obviously shoots really well from the outside. The other thing a zone does is makes getting defensive rebounds harder, which is another thing we're going to struggle with, especially when Spangler isn't in. So against the zone, they continued to take outside shots and make them. They also attacked the weak back side with some oops and cuts. And we struggled rebounding. I just didn't get it. They had some guys that were blowing by us when playing man, but I feel like an adjustment on help could've been the answer.

BTW, both times we got up 12 (once in the 1st half and once in the 2nd) he took Spangler and Clark out to get them some rest. Both times the game got within two possessions by the time they got back. We have to get something going from the bench or change the substitutions where they both aren't out at the same time. That was a killer to us.

 

[BoulderSooner]

i didn't mind the zone .. but i think we stayed in the 1-3-1 to long .. and maybe should have gone to the 3-2 ..

 

[AdaSooner]

I didn't really understand the move to zone. I mean what is the point of a zone? It's to force them to shoot from the outside and not get the ball inside. Well, UTA obviously shoots really well from the outside. The other thing a zone does is makes getting defensive rebounds harder, which is another thing we're going to struggle with, especially when Spangler isn't in. So against the zone, they continued to take outside shots and make them. They also attacked the weak back side with some oops and cuts. And we struggled rebounding. I just didn't get it. They had some guys that were blowing by us when playing man, but I feel like an adjustment on help could've been the answer.

BTW, both times we got up 12 (once in the 1st half and once in the 2nd) he took Spangler and Clark out to get them some rest. Both times the game got within two possessions by the time they got back. We have to get something going from the bench or change the substitutions where they both aren't out at the same time. That was a killer to us.

Zone defenses can be a valuable option to protect players who are in foul trouble, take the opponent out of their rhythm, or to "hide" a player or two who can't stay in front of their man in a man to man defense. I've said many times that a man defense is only as good as its weakest link.

A good zone defense is not necessarily a bad thing. Syracuse has had a lot of success over the years, and they rarely play anything but a zone.

 

[Kewllane]

Zone defenses can be a valuable option to protect players who are in foul trouble, take the opponent out of their rhythm, or to "hide" a player or two who can't stay in front of their man in a man to man defense. I've said many times that a man defense is only as good as its weakest link.

A good zone defense is not necessarily a bad thing. Syracuse has had a lot of success over the years, and they rarely play anything but a zone.

Right, but last night's zone wasn't very good or effective in my opionion. I'm not saying a zone should never be used. Just that I didn't think it made much sense last night to stick with it as long as we did.

 

[garyeb2]

Zone defenses can be a valuable option to protect players who are in foul trouble, take the opponent out of their rhythm, or to "hide" a player or two who can't stay in front of their man in a man to man defense. I've said many times that a man defense is only as good as its weakest link.

A good zone defense is not necessarily a bad thing. Syracuse has had a lot of success over the years, and they rarely play anything but a zone.

I certainly agree. I would add that Syracuse recruits players that can play their zone and as a result they can cover more ground in theirs than most teams can in a zone.

I did ask Coach Kruger the "zone" question the other day when I had his attention for a few minutes. I asked, based on what we have seen so far, could fans expect to see more zone going forward than we have seen in previous years. In typical Kruger fashion, he didn't give a yes or no answer. He did say this, "I prefer man to man and the kids prefer to play a man to man. But, we may drop into a zone some if we are having trouble stopping dribble penetration."

 

[j2d2]

With the deadly 3 point shooting, I thought a match-up zone might be as good as we were getting otherwise.

 

[Kewllane]

With the deadly 3 point shooting, I thought a match-up zone might be as good as we were getting otherwise.

Was it a matchup zone? Looked like a 1-3-1 trap or just straight 1-3-1 zone with Woodard at the bottom. I was there though, so I didn't get to see the whole floor as clearly as on TV.

 

[AdaSooner]

Right, but last night's zone wasn't very good or effective in my opionion. I'm not saying a zone should never be used. Just that I didn't think it made much sense last night to stick with it as long as we did.

I don't disagree with you about the way our kids were playing the zone or that we may have stayed in it too long. Teams that play mostly man to man (see Gary's comment above) aren't always effective in a zone. That's pretty much all the Cuse plays, so they're good at it.

My guess is that Coach Kruger stayed in the zone longer than he wanted to because one of our best backcourt defenders (Je'lon) was hurt and Jordan was either hurt, sick or totally exhausted. I'm not sure Ryan was fully recovered from his injury either. I'll also add that even when we were in a man to man defense, we weren't doing a good job of stopping Dowell, one of their bigs who continued to get loose underneath and the little guard who was knocking down threes from NBA range.

That's pure conjecture on my part. But I believe it could explain why Coach decided to go to a zone in last night's game.

 

[SoonerinNC]

Clearly we lack depth and it is magnified with Hornbeak being out. Kruger was reluctant to use the bench last night and all starters played at least 30 minutes. That is very unKruger like.

That hurts our pressure defense and slows down our uptempo offense. We only have two more games to improve on this.

 

[BoulderSooner]

Was it a matchup zone? Looked like a 1-3-1 trap or just straight 1-3-1 zone with Woodard at the bottom. I was there though, so I didn't get to see the whole floor as clearly as on TV.

it was