PDA

View Full Version : Changing Defenses.


The Chef
08-14-2008, 12:07 PM
Interesting quote I found in today's pre-game coverage of the USA 2008 Olympic men's basketball team.


Interestingly, (USA Coach Mike) Krzyzewski said the Americans' game plan going in will not include much use of a traditional 2-3 zone unless the man-to-man defense proves ineffective. That's particularly intriguing given Greece's difficulty scoring against a traditional zone, something the American coaching staff noticed as it was on hand to scout Tuesday's Greece-Germany game.

"If I tell my guys we're going to play a certain amount of zone, it's almost like saying our man-to-man is not good defense. Just psychologically," Krzyzewski said Wednesday in discussing his tactical scheme with ESPN.com.

But if they're no good against the zone, shouldn't you play zone?

"Well, no," Coach K said. "They may not be good against our man, and over the years, the championship teams I've had have made teams adjust to them. And if you're constantly adjusting to who you play, then you've got to be careful you never know who you are. But again, zone is part of our repertoire, and I'm not saying we're not going to use it, I'm just saying I don't know how many minutes we'll use it."

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/summer08/basketball/columns/story?columnist=sheridan_chris&page=USA-Greece-080813

I know it's a popular subject here about why we (UD) don't play zone, switch defenses, etc., especially against teams that do not have the propensity or personnel to handle those defenses. So, thought I would bring this idea to the party. It's actually a train of thought I agree with and would guess that BG does too. Feel free to share your thoughts.

Update: I didn't actually see the game, but there are reports that the US did change defenses against Greece.

And after stubbornly sticking to what wasn't working in the game two years ago, the Americans showed the Greeks different looks this time. They picked up full court on one early possession, then fell back into a zone defense on another.

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/summer08/basketball/men/recap?gameId=776

Gamesmanship? Hmmm....

Anyway, I'm still interested in what people think.

UDBrian
08-14-2008, 12:42 PM
I think that switching defenses pays off at times. The two times I think it helps a lot is if the other team has a great offensive player that nobody can guard, the other time would be when the other team just looks too comfortable on offense. Sometimes changing the defense can make them less comfortable and change the complexion (and outcome) of the game.

rollo
08-14-2008, 01:28 PM
How many times did Binnie get twisted into a pretzel trying to guard his man on an inbounds play under the opponent's basket only to turn around and watch as his man scored yet another basket??? Hundreds?? Thousands???? Sure seemed like it. How could a coach just stand there and watch him get fried time and time again, never once subbing for him or going to a zone? It's those types of situations where Gregory stubbornly sticks to his failing game plan that drive me nuts.

I firmly believe that a zone should be used every time - 100% - the opponent has the ball under their basket. Never give them a chance to pick on the weak defensive link (Binnie) and score a layup time after time like they've done the past 4 years. Crunch into a zone and force the ball to the perimeter. Every time.

mlekan
08-14-2008, 02:02 PM
Good topic. Gregory's defense is actually one of the things I really respect...and as much quibbling I/we do about the gameplanning, he deserves credit for molding each team into very solid defenses. We take for granted the success the man D has created in many facets (obviously keeping the other team from scoring, help, rebounding, and transition, among others). Gregory and co. keep those boys diciplined on position and coverage - when the breakdowns happen, they are very apparent and the perpetrator is exposed. Price you pay, I guess.

So, I agree with Coach K, Gregory, and the stubborn half-court man guys. I do think a quick change to zone out of timeouts, mixed in during the course of a run, and personnel-based adjustment is essential, and we sure don't see a lot of it. Gregory has been burned so many times coming out of timeouts with the ball by a quick defensive change which completely screws the designed play and causes a hurried 3 or no shot at all. Seems elementary to me...but all I do is watch TV and sit 100 feet from the court.

Gazoo
08-14-2008, 05:35 PM
If you are a man-to-man team, and hang your hat on that, you're not in danger of "not knowing who you are" by just playing 3-5 posessions a game of something else.

That's all it takes to screw with the other guy's head.

We play zone once every 3 or 4 games. That's the complaint here, I think.

Dark Flyer
08-14-2008, 11:54 PM
OP was excellent at switching defenses at the right time. His classic move was coming out of a late game timeout in a zone. More often than not he would force an opponent to burn another TO.

Count me in as another who respects BG's man-to-man principles. Unfortunately, defense was a deficit of both #2 and #33 last year and his stubborness allowed teams to abuse us (see Brown, Derek) . On a positive note, the Flyers defense should be improved this year. With noted defenders Marcus, London, and Paul Williams roaming the backcourt, I would hope that BG would press more full and half court. We have a legitimate shot blocker in Chris Wright (the new and improved #33) who should allow our guards to gamble a little more and play a little tighter. Hopefully all this will translate into an uptempo transition game and some Flight Club nastiness.

Hey, it's August, a man can dream.

The Chef
08-15-2008, 09:06 AM
"If I tell my guys we're going to play a certain amount of zone, it's almost like saying our man-to-man is not good defense. Just psychologically," Krzyzewski said...

What I'm hearing is that people don't believe this part of the quote, right?

Well, I agree with it, and that's the problem I have with the changing of defenses. I've said it here before; if a team cannot play good man-to-man defense, what makes you think the team can learn to play the zone well enough to switch back and forth? I think it's different if your team knows that it can get the job done on defense with man-to-man as your bread and butter. Unfortunately, since the 2003-04 season, we have haven't had the kind of team that plays disciplined enough man defense, and that's why I think you haven't seen the team go beyond it. If your defense doesn't have the discipline to play the man defense well, your zone defense will be toast.

UDBrian
08-15-2008, 10:34 AM
I believe there was at least one game last year and possibly two where UD switched to zone defense and it impacted the game. There were also a couple of times where the zone was tried and it was completely ineffective.

Gazoo
08-15-2008, 10:52 AM
What I'm hearing is that people don't believe this part of the quote, right?


I think what you're hearing is that people DO believe this part of the quote:

"And after stubbornly sticking to what wasn't working. . . "

This isn't a seismic shift we're talking about, it's not like we're playing 3D chess all the sudden instead of basketball. We're just saying "use your man principles while playing a zone for 1 possession".

longtimefan
08-15-2008, 02:05 PM
How many times did Binnie get twisted into a pretzel trying to guard his man on an inbounds play under the opponent's basket only to turn around and watch as his man scored yet another basket??? Hundreds?? Thousands???? Sure seemed like it. How could a coach just stand there and watch him get fried time and time again, never once subbing for him or going to a zone? It's those types of situations where Gregory stubbornly sticks to his failing game plan that drive me nuts.

I firmly believe that a zone should be used every time - 100% - the opponent has the ball under their basket. Never give them a chance to pick on the weak defensive link (Binnie) and score a layup time after time like they've done the past 4 years. Crunch into a zone and force the ball to the perimeter. Every time.

Agree on the inbounds plays under the other team's basket. Maybe if we had used a zone against LaSalle with 9 seconds left in the game on the inbounds play under their own basket one of their guys wouldn't have come WIDE open off a screen and buried a three to tie the game. With a three point lead and so little time left why not use a zone with possibly three guys out on the three point line and two underneath.

San Diego Flyer
08-15-2008, 06:12 PM
All this strategy of situational change-ups to the basic defense is good if you have the instinctive and defensive-minded personnel to absorbe it.

I'll tred on some contentious ground and say that UD has steadily moved forward in those kinds of players. Gone a number of matadors from our lineup and we now have a nucleus of returnees and newbe's who pride themselves on their defense if we are to believe the reports.

Huelsman, Marcus, London, Little, and Wright are the kind of nucleus that can make a coach's strategy work, even if the strategy is questionable. Perry, Chris Johnson, & Paul Williams aren't chopped liver either.

Quick feet, hands, and hops and a commensurate desire are hard to beat. I think we've got them.

The Chef
08-18-2008, 09:18 AM
I think what you're hearing is that people DO believe this part of the quote:

"And after stubbornly sticking to what wasn't working. . . "

This isn't a seismic shift we're talking about, it's not like we're playing 3D chess all the sudden instead of basketball. We're just saying "use your man principles while playing a zone for 1 possession".

In the context of UD (and that's where I've been trying to aim this discussion), I still think we're talking about apples and oranges. When you have a strong defensive team that is just getting picked apart on defense rather than making dumb mistakes on defense frequently, there's something to be said for trying something different. Team USA had been completely confused by teams in international play, and under those circumstances, there is something to be said about giving a team a different look to try to make that team adjust to something new, but only if players are comfortable with it and understand it. I don't think other college teams have confused the Flyers, and don't think the Dayton zone is anywhere near as good as the UD man defense. In that respect, I think changing defenses, even for a few possessions, can be very counterproductive.

IAFlyer
08-18-2008, 09:22 AM
In the context of UD (and that's where I've been trying to aim this discussion), I still think we're talking about apples and oranges. When you have a strong defensive team that is just getting picked apart on defense rather than making dumb mistakes on defense frequently, there's something to be said for trying something different. Team USA had been completely confused by teams in international play, and under those circumstances, there is something to be said about giving a team a different look to try to make that team adjust to something new, but only if you're good at it. I don't think other college teams have confused the Flyers, and don't think the Dayton zone is anywhere near as good as the UD man defense. In that respect, I think changing defenses, even for a few possessions, can be very counterproductive.

It can be counterproductive - it can also be productive. I guess that is why the coach gets the big bucks - to determine when it might help. As fans, we get to second-guess decisions without ramification -- good for us!

Gazoo
08-18-2008, 10:58 AM
All this strategy of situational change-ups to the basic defense is good if you have the instinctive and defensive-minded personnel to absorbe it.

I'll tred on some contentious ground and say that UD has steadily moved forward in those kinds of players. Gone a number of matadors from our lineup and we now have a nucleus of returnees and newbe's who pride themselves on their defense if we are to believe the reports.

Huelsman, Marcus, London, Little, and Wright are the kind of nucleus that can make a coach's strategy work, even if the strategy is questionable. Perry, Chris Johnson, & Paul Williams aren't chopped liver either.

Quick feet, hands, and hops and a commensurate desire are hard to beat. I think we've got them.

Is this the best DEFENSIVE team we're had since . . . ???

OP's teams limited scoring but also controlled the ball well, so you can't just focus on points allowed. Ramod, Keith, Shawn, Brooks, DJ, Nate, that was a pretty darn good group of team defenders.

Could this be the best defense in decades at UD? (Remember, I'm only talking defense.)

What that would take IMO:

#1: LW not taking as many chances. Getting a steal 50% of the time is great. The other team getting a layup the other 50% is not.

#2: CW staying out of foul trouble, something he struggled with as many freshmen do.

#3: KH doing a better job of filling the middle. Not that he was bad at it before, but we could use a little more intimidation than just taking charges.

#4: CL must learn to play team defense, not just his man.

Might it happen??

The Chef
08-18-2008, 11:29 AM
Is this the best DEFENSIVE team we're had since . . . ???

OP's teams limited scoring but also controlled the ball well, so you can't just focus on points allowed. Ramod, Keith, Shawn, Brooks, DJ, Nate, that was a pretty darn good group of team defenders.

Could this be the best defense in decades at UD? (Remember, I'm only talking defense.)

What that would take IMO:

#1: LW not taking as many chances. Getting a steal 50% of the time is great. The other team getting a layup the other 50% is not.

#2: CW staying out of foul trouble, something he struggled with as many freshmen do.

#3: KH doing a better job of filling the middle. Not that he was bad at it before, but we could use a little more intimidation than just taking charges.

#4: CL must learn to play team defense, not just his man.

Might it happen??

I will certainly agree that this year's and next year's teams have the raw materials to make Dayton's best defensive teams in BG's tenure here and perhaps since who knows when, maybe the 70's or early 80's. Let's see what happens there though. If the team defense turns out to be as good as we think it could be, it may put off some concerns that others have about BG's "subbornness" in staying with man-to man. BTW, it's not like BG has been completely averse to changing his defenses. (Remember Maui 2003?)

San Diego Flyer
08-18-2008, 12:23 PM
To effectively make defensive switches the guys can't take three possessions to get on board. I think KW, Hall, Ramod had excellent b-ball instincts and were just plain savvy on the court. Score one for them.

I don't see this years guys quite as savvy but they obviously are more athletic.

It all nets out that we might have our best chance of changing up defenses since that former group was at UD. I lean toward this years group being able to take advantage of that defensive strategy, especially in A10 after ooc when BG gets done playing with his lineup and figures out which 7/8 are really going to be his horses.

NCkevi
08-18-2008, 03:00 PM
#2: CW staying out of foul trouble, something he struggled with as many freshmen do.

I don't remember CW having a lot of problems with fouls - He did have 4 fouls his first game but that was the most he had all season in a single game