|
|
Post by crusader1970 on Feb 20, 2021 17:28:44 GMT -5
Let’s review some facts.
HC had a great deal of basketball success including four NCAA berths during the Willard era playing a match-up zone defense.
Sean Kearney came in, switched to a MTM defense for his one year, and led a fairly talented squad to a disappointing 9-22 record.
Milan Brown played strictly MTM defense and never was able to get HC to a PL Championship game.
Bill Carmody overall was not successful but got us to a NCAA berth and a first round victory playing a 1-3-1 zone defense.
Brett Nelson is now 6-40 playing almost exclusively a MTM defense.
In summary, our only success over the last 20+ years has been when the coach employed some version of a zone defense.
Let me be clear. I am not suggesting that Coach Nelson be fired. I realize that he is in the midst of a rebuilding process. I’m simply asking that, if you look at history, shouldn’t a zone defense play some role in that process? |
|
|
|
Post by notjuanjones on Feb 20, 2021 18:27:39 GMT -5
I think there's a few reasons. One, you have to practice zone, a lot, for it to work. The reduced time for practice every week makes that harder, unless you really believe in it. Two, zones do leave you vulnerable to allowing offensive rebounds, as you tend not to have a lot of guys under or near the basket. Coaches hate giving up offensive rebounds. Three, teams can exploit zones to create open three-pointers if you're not on point, and with most D1 teams having multiple three-point shooters these days, it's dangerous to keep playing zone. Ironically, NBA teams ARE playing more zone defenses these days, but I think that's a function of the 24-second shot clock in the NBA giving teams less time to move the defense and create those open threes.
|
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Feb 20, 2021 20:12:46 GMT -5
Two things occurred to me recently, glad this thread was created.
1. What adjustments would Ralph Willard make to the defense he ran from 1999-2009 given the marked increase in three point attempts and accuracy?
2. w/regard to #1, what defense does his son play at Seton Hall?
|
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Feb 20, 2021 20:27:47 GMT -5
I think there's a few reasons. One, you have to practice zone, a lot, for it to work. The reduced time for practice every week makes that harder, unless you really believe in it. Two, zones do leave you vulnerable to allowing offensive rebounds, as you tend not to have a lot of guys under or near the basket. Coaches hate giving up offensive rebounds. Three, teams can exploit zones to create open three-pointers if you're not on point Yes, to have a good zone requires a lot of practice. And the best zones are true match-up zones (not the mediocre ones that are called match-up zones by various TV analysts). In a good match-up zone, a team is not vulnerable to offensive rebounds - in contrast to the mediocre zones played by most teams. Back in the mid-2000's when Bucknell and HC both played really good match-up zones, they were both very good on the defensive boards. Here is where the two ranked nationally in defensive rebounding during that time frame: Bucknell: 17th (2004), 109th (2005), 25th (2006), 1st (2007). Holy Cross: 61st (2004), 17th (2005), 14th (2006), 34th (2007) I know with Bucknell - and likely with HC - that practicing the match-up to play it really well, i.e. multiple defenders constantly switching men simultaneously and automatically, required a huge amount of practice time. Often more than half the practice. That had some effect on the offense. |
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Feb 20, 2021 20:42:16 GMT -5
Two things occurred to me recently, glad this thread was created. 1. What adjustments would Ralph Willard make to the defense he ran from 1999-2009 given the marked increase in three point attempts and accuracy? 2. w/regard to #1, what defense does his son play at Seton Hall? Seton Hall plays mostly man D, with some matchup, simplified compared to his dad’s version. |
|
|
|
Post by notjuanjones on Feb 20, 2021 21:28:40 GMT -5
One other thing: you need real length, especially on the wings, to optimally play an effective zone, no matter what kind. That's obviously not always available at the PL level. When AU won the PL in 2014, and came back in the semis against HC (!) with the zone in the second half, we had a small point guard in PeeWee Gardner, but he was ultra-quick and active defensively. Otherwise, we were 6-4, 6-5, 6-8 and 6-10 at the other positions–and the wings were all very athletic with good/very good feet.
|
|
|
|
Post by DiMarz on Feb 21, 2021 9:21:54 GMT -5
My daughter was a head coach at a D-3 college in Georgia for 6 years. She played exclusively zone...I asked early on why she didn't play any M2M and she told me because everybody plays M2M. So, all the teams have multiple sets versus M2M but usually only 1or 2 vs zone. Opponents had to spend more time in game prep getting ready to play her team..... Scouting at the D-1 level is so good theses days that there is very little a team can do to that catches their opponents off guard..Coach Willard's match-up was predicated on what the scouting report showed him. He was years ahead of most teams ability to adjust, and every game was a different strategy...From who switched, who followed a player thru the lane, to where Double teams happened and who doubled, it was always a different plan..That is why other schools didn't want to play against his teams....They couldn't predict what he would do...
Today, IF I was still coaching, I would play many defenses in a game, and hope the other team never gets comfortable...Offensively, players today are much better than they were in Coach Willards era...
|
|
|
|
Post by trimster on Feb 21, 2021 9:31:03 GMT -5
Speaking of good feet what has frustrated me is watching players who try hard but don't have the physical ability, at least when it comes to the all important lateral movement or quick feet, to play effective man to man defense. I'd say close to half of our 8 man rotation is slow afoot. Why the staff continuosly exposes their deficiencies on the defensive end instead of minimizing them, baffles me. I am not sure what the answer is but I think I can see what isn't working. I know you can talk about recruiting more quickness and your desire to implement a brand of playing but I am talking about winning with what you have right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Feb 21, 2021 9:34:10 GMT -5
I am aware of only two high majors who play zone exclusively, and neither has been having much success with the 2-3- Syracuse and Washington.
It is not played much because it is ineffective, especially against the 3 and for rebounding.
Maybe there are mid and/or low majors who play zone successfully that I am unaware of.
|
|
|
|
Post by Non Alum Dave on Feb 21, 2021 9:57:45 GMT -5
I'm no expert, but to me I feel like the half court D has improved; what seems to have gotten worse is the transition D.
Is it reasonable to expect more changes next year, when collectively there is much more experience across the roster?
|
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Feb 21, 2021 10:45:49 GMT -5
Who do you think will take AB's minutes next year?
|
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Feb 21, 2021 10:55:46 GMT -5
Who do you think will take AB's minutes next year? Martindale, Montgomery, Humphrey, Kenney , maybe others |
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Feb 21, 2021 11:27:44 GMT -5
Speaking of good feet what has frustrated me is watching players who try hard but don't have the physical ability, at least when it comes to the all important lateral movement or quick feet, to play effective man to man defense. I'd say close to half of our 8 man rotation is slow afoot. Why the staff continuosly exposes their deficiencies on the defensive end instead of minimizing them, baffles me. I am not sure what the answer is but I think I can see what isn't working. I know you can talk about recruiting more quickness and your desire to implement a brand of playing but I am talking about winning with what you have right now. Good point that we may have a couple of kids out there who are not very good defensive matchups v PL opponents when we are playing man-to-man. Doesn't mean they are bad kids or aren't trying...and of course there is plenty of movement in a good zone. But I see what you are saying. Further, I think our greatest defensive weakness is down low (obviously, we do give up points all over the court) and a collapsing zone might help in that regard. TBH not sure it would make much of a difference W-L-wise. |
|
