Who was it who said Baylor can't win just playing zone?

[Edmond_Sooner]

Yea, a match-up zone is basically just a sagging, switch everything man-to-man. It can be effective, but less so than man. Match-up zone can F up people at the high school level, when half the team consists of guys who suck.

when I went to Indiana to play on that D2 team up there and they played a switching Man-to-Man i was like "why the hell we playing this lazy defense?"...man up and get through a pic!

Our Match-up was much more intense in juco, and our coach would get mad if you ever called it a zone...it was like an insult...

 

[gracefor24]

Match up zones usually wrecked people in HS if they were ran correctly and had guys with length and speed.

 

[coolm]

for someone who'd "compare his degree to mine any day" you certainly avoided the metaphor. From a sports venue the first example that popped into my head of a widely held misperception that everyone just followed along with was that one ... if the concept of a metaphor is too much for you then I will stick to Dick and Jane.

IF you're using zone as a stop-gap for defensive liabilities due to personnel issues then sure it's not going to be that good. Crappy, lazy players will yield crappy, lazy defense whether it's in zone or man. My suspicion is that's why many have such a problem with it - some think it's a makeshift panacea for defensive woes akin to limping over to a corner. Well, if it's used that way then it IS crap.

Now take the attitude bull**** away and look at the other side of it.

First someone argues it is effective because it's contrarian. OK fine. It's contrarian. That's bad? It's bad to run something different than others? I don't necessarily consider this to be the biggest strength ... but if it is one then so be it. IMO it's merely a by-product advantage. Offenses are practiced against other defenses and if yours disrupts them a bit then it's the same theory as slapping at the ball, denying a pass here or there, overplaying one player etc... . Don't let the game be dictated to you.

Second, no one wants to talk about the learning curve of the zone. Most zones are crap because they don't know how to play it well. Just as with anything else when you start seeing the same responses to it then your movements refine and that extra time it takes them to pass around it and penetrate means more chances to disrupt the pass, the catch, trap, deny you name it. It presents opportunities

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not viable. At that point I am going to side with Boeheim and Pitino over you.

 

[Sid]

I will take a great man-to-man over a zone any day of the week...as someone else said, the preparation factor is what gives zones some advantage from time to time.

Personally, I hate watching teams in the 6th-10th grades playing zone all the time...teach your kids to play man first, then work into a zone if you so desire.

It is usually laziness, and the fact that most coach's are simply history teachers who want a little extra pay.

Zone is for middle school teams, class A teams from anytown USA, and teams that suck at guarding man to man. Baylor was an extreme exception given how tall they go, but alas, it cost them.

^​

 

[playmakr]

for someone who'd "compare his degree to mine any day" you certainly avoided the metaphor.

I didn't avoid it, I dismissed it. Major difference. If anything, you're metaphor was too simplistic to even consider valid to the conversation. On top of that, the metaphor wasn't even valid, as zone has been tried many, many times. We're not talking the 80's when black quarterbacks were an unknown entity.

Just because you don't like it dose not mean it's not viable

It's the other way around, sport. I don't like it because it's not viable, save a few rare instances. The reason it's only used as a stopgap is because most teams that try to run it as a main defense usually get raped, and they are usually running a zone in the first place because they can't guard. I don't know why you think a zone defense is some new, revolutionary practice that if only teams would try it they would start taking names. It's been tried and failed as a main defense. Sure, there will be a good zone team pop up every now and then, once every 5 years at Syracuse then they go back to the NIT for a couple years and this Baylor team, as examples.

 

[Seymore Cox]

without an active player at X position the zone gets toasted?

duh


without an active player at X man gets toasted. getting "toasted" means it's not being done correctly. period.

I think we also saw the result of the zone with 17 offensive boards in the second half. You know that Zone is only as good as your personnel. With Hakim Warrick and Etan, Cuse's zone looked unbeatable. Last year, their zone was horrible.

 

[gracefor24]

I didn't avoid it, I dismissed it. Major difference. If anything, you're metaphor was too simplistic to even consider valid to the conversation. On top of that, the metaphor wasn't even valid, as zone has been tried many, many times. We're not talking the 80's when black quarterbacks were an unknown entity.


It's the other way around, sport. I don't like it because it's not viable, save a few rare instances. The reason it's only used as a stopgap is because most teams that try to run it as a main defense usually get raped, and they are usually running a zone in the first place because they can't guard. I don't know why you think a zone defense is some new, revolutionary practice that if only teams would try it they would start taking names. It's been tried and failed as a main defense. Sure, there will be a good zone team pop up every now and then, once every 5 years at Syracuse then they go back to the NIT for a couple years and this Baylor team, as examples.

To me the lack of use is the biggest evidence to it's ineffectiveness. The higher the level of basketball the less zone is utilized. It works great in JR High and elementary when kids can hardly shoot or pass effectively. It works decently in HS ball but less so than before. In college it is used rarely and mostly by teams that can't guard in man to man and isn't a long term solution except for a minority of teams. In the NBA not only is it not used but was against the rules for awhile because it was a boring way of playing. Even now the teams who run any type of zone in the NBA are simply trying to hide a player that can't guard his shadow.

 

[gracefor24]

I think we also saw the result of the zone with 17 offensive boards in the second half. You know that Zone is only as good as your personnel. With Hakim Warrick and Etan, Cuse's zone looked unbeatable. Last year, their zone was horrible.

The year Syracuse won it they had Melo, Warrick, Kueth Duany who were all super long and athletic, not to mention Josh Pace on the wing who was 6'6 and long armed as well. Then add Craig Forth who was massive and Billy Edelin off the bench who was 6'4 as well.

 

[playmakr]

To me the lack of use is the biggest evidence to it's ineffectiveness. The higher the level of basketball the less zone is utilized. It works great in JR High and elementary when kids can hardly shoot or pass effectively. It works decently in HS ball but less so than before. In college it is used rarely and mostly by teams that can't guard in man to man and isn't a long term solution except for a minority of teams. In the NBA not only is it not used but was against the rules for awhile because it was a boring way of playing. Even now the teams who run any type of zone in the NBA are simply trying to hide a player that can't guard his shadow.

You're wrong, Grace. Just leave it at that. You're wrong.

 

[coolm]

I didn't avoid it, I dismissed it. Major difference. If anything, you're metaphor was too simplistic to even consider valid to the conversation. On top of that, the metaphor wasn't even valid, as zone has been tried many, many times. We're not talking the 80's when black quarterbacks were an unknown entity.


It's the other way around, sport. I don't like it because it's not viable, save a few rare instances. The reason it's only used as a stopgap is because most teams that try to run it as a main defense usually get raped, and they are usually running a zone in the first place because they can't guard. I don't know why you think a zone defense is some new, revolutionary practice that if only teams would try it they would start taking names. It's been tried and failed as a main defense. Sure, there will be a good zone team pop up every now and then, once every 5 years at Syracuse then they go back to the NIT for a couple years and this Baylor team, as examples.

you essentially keep saying it's bad because it sucks or the players suck - so don't rag on me about crappy, conclusory arguments.

 

[playmakr]

you essentially keep saying it's bad because it sucks or the players suck - so don't rag on me about crappy, conclusory arguments.

It does suck. That is a conclusion, and a sound one. One backed up by years of nobody playing it.

This just trust me it will work mantra simply isn't working for you.

You're wrong.

 

[tallandsexy]

Zone are more and more effective every year because players have sucky fundamentals, try to do everything one on one, can not shoot, and the biggest reason is because kids are bigger and longer than they used to be.

 

[coolm]

ahhh...the "everyone else is doing it" argument.

so sound.

Were we to keep believing that then the goal would be a peach basket, slavery would still exist, and there'd be no forward pass.

Doesn't shock me at all that it suffices for you though. Not at all.

 

[tallandsexy]

A matchup zone, when run correctly and coached by someone who understands it, is the best defense you can play. That's what I think!

 

[playmakr]

ahhh...the "everyone else is doing it" argument.

so sound.

Were we to keep believing that then the goal would be a peach basket, slavery would still exist, and there'd be no forward pass.

Doesn't shock me at all that it suffices for you though. Not at all.

One more time. The zone is not a new novelty. It has been tried. It's not some new creation that coach's are just now stumbling onto. What suffices is my experience on nearly every level and playing with and against every scheme, not some half-baked theory backed by useless, irrelevant, and even embarrassing metaphors. And not some theory based on "just trust me it works" or "you can coach them up." People have tried to coach up guys into zone's. Doesn't work outside of intramurals, some high school basketball, church leagues with fat old men stumbling over themselves, and the ever so often college team that will play it with super long athletes.

What doesn't shock me is that you're wrong. How does that taste going down, sport?

 

[tallandsexy]

One more time. The zone is not a new novelty. It has been tried. It's not some new creation that coach's are just now stumbling onto. What suffices is my experience on nearly every level and playing with and against every scheme, not some half-baked theory backed by useless metaphors.

What doesn't shock me is that you're wrong. How does that taste going down, sport?

Part of the reason zone is not played more is because a lot of coaches do not know how to coach it. How about that? No clue if it is correct or not, but it could be. Man to man is what I call lazy coaching. Coaches that do not understand the game enough to do much except say go guard someone. If you look at all of these teams that play man, a lot of them suck at help defense.

 

[tallandsexy]

One more time. The zone is not a new novelty. It has been tried. It's not some new creation that coach's are just now stumbling onto. What suffices is my experience on nearly every level and playing with and against every scheme, not some half-baked theory backed by useless, irrelevant, and even embarrassing metaphors. And not some theory based on "just trust me it works" or "you can coach them up." People have tried to coach up guys into zone's. Doesn't work outside of intramurals, some high school basketball, church leagues with fat old men stumbling over themselves, and the ever so often college team that will play it with super long athletes.

What doesn't shock me is that you're wrong. How does that taste going down, sport?

OU made the final four running a lot of matchup zone. They ran the same matchup zone that Temple ran.

 

[playmakr]

Part of the reason zone is not played more is because a lot of coaches do not know how to coach it. How about that? No clue if it is correct or not, but it could be.

Another theory, nice. If zone worked, more coach's would run it, I promise.

Man to man is what I call lazy coaching

I'm not sure why I am responding to such nonsense, but I'll simply say, no.

Coaches that do not understand the game enough to do much except say go guard someone.

Haha yea "go guard someone" is man to man defense. C'mon, let's get serious. We can't have serious discussions when people are going to post things like this. In what league that you played in was man to man defense "go guard someone?" Intramurals? YMCA league? You need to watch Butler play. Yea, they just go "guard someone."

OU made the final four running a lot of matchup zone. They ran the same matchup zone that Temple ran.

They only ran some zone at times, not for long stretches and it was out of necessity. (foul trouble, change of pace) A match-up zone is basically a sagging, switching man to man defense with man principles, which if you were keeping up I already stated. Get off match-up zone, we are talking man vs. zone, no match-up zone. Once again if you were paying attention match-up zone has already been covered, and I already said it is a good enough defense if run correctly, as it is basically switching man to man. It's still not as good as good man to man defense.

 

[gracefor24]

OU made the final four running a lot of matchup zone. They ran the same matchup zone that Temple ran.

I don't remember Kelvin Sampson running much zone at all. He definitely didn't run the zone that Temple ran. A matchup zone is a really good defense against teams that don't see it very often but it has some definite weaknesses as well.

Coaches know how to coach zone, they just also know that it isn't the best option out there.

Again, if there was something that was so clearly the best thing to do EVERYONE would be doing it. And they are.

 

[tallandsexy]

I don't remember Kelvin Sampson running much zone at all. He definitely didn't run the zone that Temple ran. A matchup zone is a really good defense against teams that don't see it very often but it has some definite weaknesses as well.

Coaches know how to coach zone, they just also know that it isn't the best option out there.

Again, if there was something that was so clearly the best thing to do EVERYONE would be doing it. And they are.

Templ's was a point matchup, and OU ran a true matchup.

My fault, I was thinking of a juco but said Temple. You are correct!