|
Post by WorcesterGray on Jan 4, 2018 12:41:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by WCHC Sports on Jan 4, 2018 13:08:07 GMT -5
I gotcha, hoops. Weak side can still close the lane half way into the key, or one man can body whomever comes in at the high post. Defensive players aren't anchored to the four posts of the key... but we don't need to argue semantics. Putting myself in CBC's shoes, I don't think I'd have to resort to "junk' defenses as efg72 calls it... I'd have to have a way out of my base sets to counter or prepare for the other team's biggest threat. CBC said it himself the past two games that they were aware of what was coming at them. Most concerning was that it never was stopped or slowed down.
|
|
|
Post by WorcesterGray on Jan 4, 2018 13:20:03 GMT -5
CBC said it himself the past two games that they were aware of what was coming at them. Most concerning was that it never was stopped or slowed down. Some of the sound bytes after the last couple games have a similar ring to ones that were roundly mocked during the previous regime ( "We kept saying to not let him shoot the ball," "This wasn't totally unexpected," "We just didn't guard what we knew they were going to do," etc.). Hopefully, the staff is re-thinking how they prepare the team for each game.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jan 4, 2018 13:20:13 GMT -5
There is a reason that no college coach I have watched for decades has employed any of these junk defenses. They do not work.
|
|
|
Post by WCHC Sports on Jan 4, 2018 14:24:30 GMT -5
They don't work as well as when your team is good enough to play what everybody else plays: man to man (Boeheim's Syracuse one notable exception). However, we don't seem to be able to do it, and outside of FCMB trying it briefly, HC has been poor at it. So, if we do have to run out matchup zones, 1-3-1 traps, full court full game presses (even when they are being broken routinely), it's clear that the coach thinks we have to try such gimmicks in order to be successful. So if we've opened up Pandora's Box, why not use every trick in there?
I agree with you fundamentally, at D1, we should be able to play man adeptly. I would prefer that.
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Jan 4, 2018 14:28:29 GMT -5
There is a reason that no college coach I have watched for decades has employed any of these junk defenses. They do not work. They rarely worked at the college level at any time. And since the popularization of the 3-point shot, I think they are even less effective. With only four defenders in the zone, it is very easy to get wide open threes. Also, of course, easy entry passes.
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Jan 4, 2018 14:31:40 GMT -5
That was one of the great travesties of college basketball. The defense clearly wasn't working, as Davidson was playing 4 vs 3, but Patsos stuck with it all game. Even after Davidson ran off an early 18-0 burst. Most Loyola fans were upset and thought Patsos did it solely to get himself some publicity - which often seems to be a very important consideration to him.
|
|
|
Post by dadominate on Jan 4, 2018 16:46:09 GMT -5
That was one of the great travesties of college basketball. The defense clearly wasn't working, as Davidson was playing 4 vs 3, but Patsos stuck with it all game. Even after Davidson ran off an early 18-0 burst. Most Loyola fans were upset and thought Patsos did it solely to get himself some publicity - which often seems to be a very important consideration to him. while an entertaining/charismatic guy, patsos is one of the worst x's and o's guys i've ever come across. i once shared the story on the board how patsos was entertaining some of my fellow high school coaches and me at a bar in baltimore one night (he was recruiting one of our players) with similarly ridiculous strategies/plays on cocktail napkins that he swore would work. as such, this crazy story came as no surprise. as hoops pointed out, while you see gimmicky defenses from time to time at the high school level, these schemes just don't work at the college level. honestly, you hardly even see them in high level high school basketball games as there are usually a few competent players on any roster. the other players that are not being focused on in these defenses are just to good to leave them open with lots of space to either shoot or drive resulting from all of the holes that are created in a box and one (and certainly in a triangle and two with both defenders on one player... which is lunacy in college). you just cannot leave college players wide open, with the potential exception of the hc/lafayette game the other night for all players not named alex petrie ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) although i agree that i would like to see more changes in defensive schemes from time to time if we're getting torched, because while we are young, our players certainly have the smarts to handle several different looks within a game. to carmody's credit, he certainly does this sometimes, but i agree that he often stays with ineffective schemes too long for my liking. but i haven't been a d1 head coach for over 20 years, had a top 10 tanked team, won ncaa tournament games, coached in the big 10 for over 10 years, etc. etc. etc.
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Jan 4, 2018 16:51:21 GMT -5
Let Scott go...bring RW in for a couple weeks of intensive matchup zone...see what happens.
|
|
|
Post by HC92 on Jan 4, 2018 17:05:31 GMT -5
There is a reason that no college coach I have watched for decades has employed any of these junk defenses. They do not work. Not in college but they do work in 8th grade travel!
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jan 4, 2018 17:17:57 GMT -5
There is a reason that no college coach I have watched for decades has employed any of these junk defenses. They do not work. Not in college but they do work in 8th grade travel! At least in rural Connecticut !
|
|
|
Post by HC92 on Jan 4, 2018 17:20:13 GMT -5
Not in college but they do work in 8th grade travel! At least in rural Connecticut ! True. The coaching ain’t exactly cutting edge out here in the sticks.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jan 4, 2018 17:20:22 GMT -5
That was one of the great travesties of college basketball. The defense clearly wasn't working, as Davidson was playing 4 vs 3, but Patsos stuck with it all game. Even after Davidson ran off an early 18-0 burst. Most Loyola fans were upset and thought Patsos did it solely to get himself some publicity - which often seems to be a very important consideration to him. while an entertaining/charismatic guy, patsos is one of the worst x's and o's guys i've ever come across. i once shared the story on the board how patsos was entertaining some of my fellow high school coaches and me at a bar in baltimore one night (he was recruiting one of our players) with similarly ridiculous strategies/plays on cocktail napkins that he swore would work. as such, this crazy story came as no surprise. as hoops pointed out, while you see gimmicky defenses from time to time at the high school level, these schemes just don't work at the college level. honestly, you hardly even see them in high level high school basketball games as there are usually a few competent players on any roster. the other players that are not being focused on in these defenses are just to good to leave them open with lots of space to either shoot or drive resulting from all of the holes that are created in a box and one (and certainly in a triangle and two with both defenders on one player... which is lunacy in college). you just cannot leave college players wide open, with the potential exception of the hc/lafayette game the other night for all players not named alex petrie ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) although i agree that i would like to see more changes in defensive schemes from time to time if we're getting torched, because while we are young, our players certainly have the smarts to handle several different looks within a game. to carmody's credit, he certainly does this sometimes, but i agree that he often stays with ineffective schemes too long for my liking. but i haven't been a d1 head coach for over 20 years, had a top 10 tanked team, won ncaa tournament games, coached in the big 10 for over 10 years, etc. etc. etc. Well said Dado My only nit to pick is that the triangle and 2 is almost always used to stop the 2 biggest scorers on an opponent, not putting 2 defenders on one player
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jan 4, 2018 17:22:56 GMT -5
At least in rural Connecticut ! True. The coaching ain’t exactly cutting edge out here in the sticks. Obviouisly (Sorry. Could not resist that fastball down the middle)
|
|
|
Post by dadominate on Jan 4, 2018 18:23:32 GMT -5
while an entertaining/charismatic guy, patsos is one of the worst x's and o's guys i've ever come across. i once shared the story on the board how patsos was entertaining some of my fellow high school coaches and me at a bar in baltimore one night (he was recruiting one of our players) with similarly ridiculous strategies/plays on cocktail napkins that he swore would work. as such, this crazy story came as no surprise. as hoops pointed out, while you see gimmicky defenses from time to time at the high school level, these schemes just don't work at the college level. honestly, you hardly even see them in high level high school basketball games as there are usually a few competent players on any roster. the other players that are not being focused on in these defenses are just to good to leave them open with lots of space to either shoot or drive resulting from all of the holes that are created in a box and one (and certainly in a triangle and two with both defenders on one player... which is lunacy in college). you just cannot leave college players wide open, with the potential exception of the hc/lafayette game the other night for all players not named alex petrie ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) although i agree that i would like to see more changes in defensive schemes from time to time if we're getting torched, because while we are young, our players certainly have the smarts to handle several different looks within a game. to carmody's credit, he certainly does this sometimes, but i agree that he often stays with ineffective schemes too long for my liking. but i haven't been a d1 head coach for over 20 years, had a top 10 tanked team, won ncaa tournament games, coached in the big 10 for over 10 years, etc. etc. etc. Well said Dado My only nit to pick is that the triangle and 2 is almost always used to stop the 2 biggest scorers on an opponent, not putting 2 defenders on one player i fully recognize that, hoops. i was pointing out the sheer lunacy of a triangle and two on ONE player. something i had never seen at any level, not even cyo/rec league, let alone college hoops. patsos is a piece of work.
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Jan 4, 2018 18:38:12 GMT -5
The only way I could ever see doing that type of defense is if it was at the end of a half or a game, very little time left; and one was 100% certain you didn't want one guy getting the ball. Maybe deny that person the ball with 2 people, leave the inbounder alone and have the other 3 set up in some triangle or another. Even then, very risky.
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on Jan 4, 2018 19:04:16 GMT -5
As I said earlier you only run a junk defense if you must, and only for a few possessions to change the look. Coaches and players have improved over the years and they have multiple options.
With that said, how would we adjust or respond if the opponent threw a junk defense at the current roster? Not judging in any way but would be interested in thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jan 4, 2018 19:16:53 GMT -5
Well said Dado My only nit to pick is that the triangle and 2 is almost always used to stop the 2 biggest scorers on an opponent, not putting 2 defenders on one player i fully recognize that, hoops. i was pointing out the sheer lunacy of a triangle and two on ONE player. something i had never seen at any level, not even cyo/rec league, let alone college hoops. patsos is a piece of work. Sorry, Dado . I did not realize you were referring to Patsos (alleged) D on Curry.
|
|
|
Post by Xmassader on Jan 4, 2018 19:53:11 GMT -5
hchoops-----your classmate Greeley went from 28 ppg as a freshman to leaving the team early in his sr. yr. His brief appearance in the '66-'67 season is listed under the name "Others" in '67-'68 press guide.
|
|
|
Post by WCHC Sports on Jan 5, 2018 10:02:21 GMT -5
You guys are trashing the "junk" defenses and I can't argue against you with facts. So let me counter this way: why does HC avoid man-to-man like the plague for the better part of 15 -20 years?
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jan 5, 2018 10:23:32 GMT -5
Mostly because coaches except for MB believed that it was not the best way for HC to win
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Jan 5, 2018 10:26:32 GMT -5
We had more speed with CMB. Burrell, Green, AT, CH. DD MA not so much.
|
|
|
Post by WorcesterGray on Jan 5, 2018 10:27:46 GMT -5
why does HC avoid man-to-man like the plague for the better part of 15 -20 years? 1. Willard's defense worked, so we had as much an interest in straight m2m, as Syracuse would. 2. In the November 2015 exhibition vs. Assumption, Carmody went strictly man-to-man in the first half, and Assumption guys beat defenders off the dribble consistently - haven't seen more than a whiff of m2m since. Assume he doesn't feel our guys as a group can match-up (though Green, Grandison, and Floyd certainly could), but also a function of his over-riding priority in recruiting - players who can dribble-pass-shoot. Makes much more sense to me to go to a more straightforward zone like a 2-3 - more rebounding, fewer fouls, Faw and Floyd play together some (maximizing the virtues of each and minimizing their vices.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jan 5, 2018 10:33:01 GMT -5
why does HC avoid man-to-man like the plague for the better part of 15 -20 years? 1. Willard's defense worked, so we had as much an interest in straight m2m, as Syracuse would. 2. In the November 2015 exhibition vs. Assumption, Carmody went strictly man-to-man in the first half, and Assumption guys beat defenders off the dribble consistently - haven't seen more than a whiff of m2m since. Assume he doesn't feel our guys as a group can match-up (though Green, Grandison, and Floyd certainly could), but also a function of his over-riding priority in recruiting - players who can dribble-pass-shoot. Makes much more sense to me to go to a more straightforward zone like a 2-3 - more rebounding, fewer fouls, Faw and Floyd play together some (maximizing the virtues of each and minimizing their vices. Other than Syracuse(usually big and long at 5 spots), very few schools play straight 2-3, esp with the greatly increased use of the 3
|
|
|
Post by WorcesterGray on Jan 5, 2018 10:33:43 GMT -5
Mostly because coaches except for MB believed that it was not the best way for HC to win And Brown's Achilles heel was that he refused to play zone, and didn't seem to have a good plan for attacking one at the other end (the second-half meltdown vs. American in the 2014 PLT semi-finals, when they went zone, effectively sealed his fate)
|
|