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

[playmakr]

Actually he did run a match up zone, and it was the same zone that Temple ran.

Not very often in the tournament, and out of necessity due to foul trouble and as a change of pace. Zone isn't a bad "trick" defense or a stopgap defense, as has been stated.

I know for a fact they didn't play one second of anything but man against UIC.

Temple's match-up zone is not like most match-up zones.

 

[tallandsexy]

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


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


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."


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.

Haha, I was just having fun and playing devils advocate. How about you calm down and stop trying to act like you are the all knowing on this board. I did not actually read all of your posts, mainly because you think you know more **** than anyone and take the time to try to rip on everyone.

 

[playmakr]

Haha, I was just having fun and playing devils advocate. How about you calm down and stop trying to act like you are the all knowing on this board. I did not actually read all of your posts, mainly because you think you know more **** than anyone and take the time to try to rip on everyone.

.
You're not following along very closely, which you admitted. If you had been, you would be aware it is CoolM who is being stubborn and trying to convince the whole board he is right and took it upon himself to start taking shots at me. Indeed, your post should be directed at him. Try to calm down a little bit.

You played devil's advocate poorly, but I will do better to try and fish that out next time.

As for being a know it all, I can't speak for any other discussions on this board you may be referencing, but I feel pretty good about this one, given it's coolm and your advocating devil vs. the whole board. I've admitted I'm wrong countless times. (Frank Martin, Scott Drew off the top of my head) On this issue, why would I do that? I'm not going to let Coolm come in and be "the boss" because he used to run a private, secret basketball blog or because he coached a junior high team one time and took his zone all the way to the conference title in class A.

 

[coolm]

you know what - don't pretend you know me or anything about me. Your little run down right there is yet another example of you talking out of your azz.

Frank and Scott? I seem to remember being on the positive side of those also so maybe you're just wrong pretty often...the same way you don't understand the concept of a metaphor or irony.

 

[gracefor24]

.
You played devil's advocate poorly, but I will do better to try and fish that out next time.

HAHAHA!:clap

 

[playmakr]

you know what - don't pretend you know me or anything about me. Your little run down right there is yet another example of you talking out of your azz.

You know what- I only responded to your trash talk.

the same way you don't understand the concept of a metaphor or irony.

Yea, because telling you how stupid and weak your metaphors are is the same as not understanding. You got off tangent when you realized simply saying "you're wrong" (and then we all shake in our boots) wouldn't work on anyone outside your blog. You resorted to reading comprehension shots, and questioning my education level, etc. This is no problem to me I don't know you from Adam, I enjoyed it, but don't cry afoul when it is put back on you. Boo hoo.

LOL at you thinking your little metaphors make your argument infallible.

Getting back on topic and off your sensibilities, people don't play zone because when it has been tried, it hasn't been near as effective as man to man. It will work at lower levels when there is maybe one good player on the floor. When you get to Division 1 basketball, it is reserved for special group of athletes, like this years Baylor team. You even have Baylor's biggest fan on this board admitting it was out of necessity. They did it very well, and they are the exception to the rule. If it was such a success, more teams would be doing it. Coaches don't hold back on things just because they can or don't want to try something new.

 

[Cheno]

I'm not a big zone guy but I think it has it's time and place against certain teams or spots. I don't believe AT ALL in blowing zone all the time. To me great defensive coaches play multiple styles of defenses and changes things up. I sat their bewildered yesterday as Baylor continued to sit in that zone and let Jon Scheyer and Nolan Smith shoot wide open 3 after wide open 3 and to let the Duke's bigs get all of those rebounds. If Udoh and/or Dunn go pro like is being talked Baylor could be in for a long season next year especially if they just sit in that zone with our experienced players.

 

[coolm]

You know what- I only responded to your trash talk.


Yea, because telling you how stupid and weak your metaphors are is the same as not understanding. You got off tangent when you realized simply saying "you're wrong" (and then we all shake in our boots) wouldn't work on anyone outside your blog. You resorted to reading comprehension shots, and questioning my education level, etc. This is no problem to me I don't know you from Adam, I enjoyed it, but don't cry afoul when it is put back on you. Boo hoo.

LOL at you thinking your little metaphors make your argument infallible.

I never expected you to shake in your boots nor did I say "you should be shaking in your boots". As I said quite a few posts ago I hate these exchanges anymore. Mostly because they hurt my hands to type...but also because you will continually ask me to prove X and Y and Z while offering nothing yourself (other than "the players are bad" and "it sucks" - which has been your whole contention).

As such, since no one will be convinced of anything, it makes more sense to just say "you're wrong" and move on. Same difference in the end.

I am not sure what your thing is with a blog or whatever. I can't seem to remember ever bringing it up either way. Get over it.

I did bring up the fact that you argue like an uneducated twit and I stand by that one. The only thing you've offered of ANY substance was "we didn't notice any blah blah blah..." and had you continued down that route you might have sounded halfway intelligent. Instead, you retreated back to your initial salvo of "it sucks and the players suck" - with an added "everyone does this instead". More reasons why it's not even worth a discussion with you and a general response of "you're wrong" is valid and less painful to the hands and the patience.

 

[Seymore Cox]

Are we really about to pull knives and guns about the 2-3 zone?

 

[Cheno]

I wonder how many 3's Duke would have had to hit to pull Drew out of his zone?
20? 30?

 

[cfin5256]

Are we really about to pull knives and guns about the 2-3 zone?

Or a chain or something. Never knew that the man vs zone debate could lead to violence.

 

[Sooner23]

Are we really about to pull knives and guns about the 2-3 zone?

The Internet = Serious business

 

[BigTime]

Are we really about to pull knives and guns about the 2-3 zone?

Debating anything against Play is one of the most painful message board experiences for me. Not fun. I'm much happier when he is on my side of a debate!

 

[playmakr]

Are we really about to pull knives and guns about the 2-3 zone?

Nah I'm more the brass knuckles type. Knives and guns are so overrated.

Debating anything against Play is one of the most painful message board experiences for me. Not fun. I'm much happier when he is on my side of a debate!

I'll try to do better. I like discussing hoops, it usually gets lengthy when guys resort to underhanded stuff, which I usually react with to with equally underhanded stuff just to make that person realize how silly he is being. I'll try to stay out of 3 page debates.

 

[DFWHoopster]

Cheno- we get it. You think Scott Drew is a terrible coach. Duke would have lost to Kansas because Self would have done something incredibly smart to shut down Singler, Smith and Scheyer. And KU would have carved up that porous Duke defense.

Tallandsexy- you may have been joking but part of the success of the match-up zone for schools like Syracuse, Temple, Arizona State and Baylor has been the declining ability of players to hit mid-range jumpers. I saw many games where Baylor sold out to take away good attempts in the lane and the 3-point line and allowed teams to shoot elbow and 12-15 foot jumpers. Problem is that very few players can make that shot consistently.

They are much more comfortable shooting 3's and making difficult shots at the rim than they are hitting mid range jumpers. Where is Alex English and Bernard King when you need them?

 

[Cheno]

Cheno- we get it. You think Scott Drew is a terrible coach. Duke would have lost to Kansas because Self would have done something incredibly smart to shut down Singler, Smith and Scheyer. And KU would have carved up that porous Duke defense.

I don't think Drew is a terrible coach. Just not a good defensive coach. I think he's a very good recruiter. I guarantee Self and 90% of the other coaches in the country would have switched it up at some point. It's not like that takes some coaching genius to see that.
Were you not thinking the same thing watching the game?
What's the weakness of a zone? Giving up open 3's and offensive rebounds.
Those are precisely the two reasons Baylor lost that game.
Baylor had a great season though so Drew has lots to be proud of. I just don't understand the reasoning on not changing up defenses on Sunday.

 

[brettromar]

A good coach can work both zones in.

Last time I checked a big time defensive coach in Huggins played a lot of zone in the sweet 16.

I think a team that mixes the two will cause the most problems.

By the way, Syracus runs a 2-3 and will cover you in your area, not a true matchup.

Kelvin ran a lot more matchup than people realized. It was the same one that we ran at my juco and Kelvin would call our coach to talk about certain situations all the time.

I am a big fan of the match up zone. I think it has limited options to beat it. I think teams have to shoot VERY well to beat a well coached match up zone. That option is the reason I believe good teams have to run both defenses. If they are just knocking them down, go man for a while, see what happens.

I do think you will see more and more teams running zone. It might not be their base defense but I saw more zone this year in the tourney than I have seen in a while.

 

[stoops4pres]

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.

Exactly. To me, I think the zone can be effective when you have the long, rangy athletes as your personnel.

My college team had a myriad of those rangy athletes; we were the most athletic team in the conference. Our coach mixed it up, but specifically mentioned to us countless times that the only reason we're running zone was because of our inherent advantage from a length standpoint. He preferred man, but its good to use zone when you have that personnel in your arsenal.

 

[brettromar]

I thought Syr zone looked pretty good this year. It got them a number 1 seed.

The thing that killed them was losing their center. The way they play the zone they have to have that center that can alter shots.

I think you man defense goes by your personnel also. If you take some of the great athletes off the good man teams and replace them with average guys, their man defense won't be the same either.

I am a true believer in the saying:
It's not the x's and o's, it's the Jimmies and the Joes.

Unfortunately, the more I around coaches, less I believe other people in this field feel the same way.