zone

#2
#2
It has put the hurt on the VOLs several times this season.
 
Last edited:
#3
#3
It has put the hurt of the VOls several times this season.

Forced Ky to their weakness and they put up too many 3's. Took them out of their game and changed the flow of the game a couple of times, which disrupts teams that are young and teams that play off of aggression and emotion.
 
#5
#5
The college game is much better suited for man to man. The zone can be affective against poor shooting teams, but you can get ran out of the gym using it too.

If a team can play tough man to man, no need for zone. Which is why Coach Martin isn't using it, he wants his team to play tough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6
#6
The college game is much better suited for man to man. The zone can be affective against poor shooting teams, but you can get ran out of the gym using it too.

If a team can play tough man to man, no need for zone. Which is why Coach Martin isn't using it, he wants his team to play tough.

Ole Miss didn't have any trouble playing tough using a zone.
 
#7
#7
The college game is much better suited for man to man. The zone can be affective against poor shooting teams, but you can get ran out of the gym using it too.

If a team can play tough man to man, no need for zone. Which is why Coach Martin isn't using it, he wants his team to play tough.


The object is to win games. If you don't use all possible weapons to win, it doesn't make much sense. Vandy doesn't win an SEC title without playing zone and forcing the best team in college ball to shoot 20 feet from the rim instead of 2 feet.

It has nothing to do with the college game being suited for it or not. You play it when it's necessary, then get back out of it to change it up, though Syracuse never plays man and they have done fine.

I'm perfectly fine with a tough team and tough man to man, but you are costing yourself w's if you can't mix it up.
 
#8
#8
We need to spend most of our practices playing against the zone. It inability to play against it is most likely going to keep us out of the tournament.
 
#9
#9
We need to spend most of our practices playing against the zone. It inability to play against it is most likely going to keep us out of the tournament.


Another reason why you have to have it. If you only practice against a zone the day prior to playing a zone team, your D not only doesn't know how to play it, but the O will look good because your D doesn't know how to play it. You basically get no good practice against it, and look unprepared against it during a game.
 
#10
#10
Another reason why you have to have it. If you only practice against a zone the day prior to playing a zone team, your D not only doesn't know how to play it, but the O will look good because your D doesn't know how to play it. You basically get no good practice against it, and look unprepared against it during a game.

Exactly. You're giving your O false hope thinking they can play against it.
 
#11
#11
The object is to win games. If you don't use all possible weapons to win, it doesn't make much sense. Vandy doesn't win an SEC title without playing zone and forcing the best team in college ball to shoot 20 feet from the rim instead of 2 feet.

It has nothing to do with the college game being suited for it or not. You play it when it's necessary, then get back out of it to change it up, though Syracuse never plays man and they have done fine.

I'm perfectly fine with a tough team and tough man to man, but you are costing yourself w's if you can't mix it up.

I never said we shouldn't play zone. The college game is better suited for man to man, we have to learn to play that first. This is Cuonzo's first year, he is implementing his style of play. His style is man to man. He is going to make sure his team can play that first.

He may never go zone, but that is his choice. Again, if you can play tough man to man, there is no need for a zone. Our defense was not the problem, it was our offense. We blow the doors off Ole Miss if we shoot even 45 pct from the field. We didn't, but that doesn't mean we should be throwing out a zone on them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#12
#12
Another reason why you have to have it. If you only practice against a zone the day prior to playing a zone team, your D not only doesn't know how to play it, but the O will look good because your D doesn't know how to play it. You basically get no good practice against it, and look unprepared against it during a game.

These kids have seen a zone all of their life, they know how to play against it. We can't score on a consistent basis, that is what has killed us. If we had 1 shooter, 90 pct of the teams we play wouldn't be zoning us. If you can shoot, you can bust a zone quickly.
 
#13
#13
Vandy probably doesn't win that game today without going zone.

That's all that needs to be said, really. Except for zone D's in highschool are not even comparable to a zone D in college with length and speed on the floor.
 
#14
#14
The college game is much better suited for man to man. The zone can be affective against poor shooting teams, but you can get ran out of the gym using it too.

If a team can play tough man to man, no need for zone. Which is why Coach Martin isn't using it, he wants his team to play tough.

There is always a need for it. You said it yourself, it is effective against poor shooting teams, like Tennessee.

It is also effective against average shooting teams with really good post players because it clogs the paint, making it difficult to get the ball in the hands of your post players.

No one is advocating a Jim Boeheim-ish 40 minute session of purely zone defense, but it sure would help to have it in your arsenal.
 
#15
#15
The object is to win games. If you don't use all possible weapons to win, it doesn't make much sense. Vandy doesn't win an SEC title without playing zone and forcing the best team in college ball to shoot 20 feet from the rim instead of 2 feet.

It has nothing to do with the college game being suited for it or not. You play it when it's necessary, then get back out of it to change it up, though Syracuse never plays man and they have done fine.

I'm perfectly fine with a tough team and tough man to man, but you are costing yourself w's if you can't mix it up.

Vandy didn't win an SEC title. UK won the SEC title. Vandy won the SEC tournament.
 
#16
#16
I don't think we should worry about us using zone as much as how to beat it. Our defense isn't why we lost the Ole Miss game, we just couldn't score on theirs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#18
#18
I don't think we should worry about us using zone as much as how to beat it. Our defense isn't why we lost the Ole Miss game, we just couldn't score on theirs.

This team has been putrid vs. the zone all year. We may not see it on Tuesday with the quick turnaround, but expect to see it plenty later in the NIT if we keep winning.
 
#19
#19
I don't think we should worry about us using zone as much as how to beat it. Our defense isn't why we lost the Ole Miss game, we just couldn't score on theirs.

Our defense wasn't what it has been against Ole Miss. It wasn't the whole reason we lost, but it certainly contributed. They shot 43%, which isn't awful defense, but it's certainly not good. Too many easy buckets and close range looks for a team with athletic post players, which a zone would have prevented.

Learning how to attack the zine offensively would be a byproduct of practicing it yourself. If you implement if it into your defensive scheme and practice it, by default, you become better at learning how to attack it. Truthfully, having more consistent outside shooting threats and wings willing to take it to the hole off the dribble would help as much as anything.
 
Last edited:
#22
#22
I don't think we should worry about us using zone as much as how to beat it. Our defense isn't why we lost the Ole Miss game, we just couldn't score on theirs.


we couldn't stop the pick and roll and the rotation was late. It happened on multiple possessions. If we get one or two stops there, we may win even with a putrid offense.
 
#23
#23
It's one of the reasons Syracuse is successful year after year. Most teams aren't 100% prepared to play against it since it's used so sparingly. If more teams played the zone, it would lose a lot of it's effectiveness.
 
#24
#24
We held teams to the fewest points since the inception of the shot clock according to the KNS - so we must be doing something right with our man-to-man.

Our problem with the Ole Miss zone was 34 3pt attempts.
 
#25
#25
We held teams to the fewest points since the inception of the shot clock according to the KNS - so we must be doing something right with our man-to-man.

Our problem with the Ole Miss zone was 34 3pt attempts.


Yes, they did a lot of things right. Yes, man to man should be their defenses A and B. Is man to man 100% effective?
Nope. And when it's not effective and your adjustments haven't worked, it needs to be an option. That's all.
 

VN Store



Back
Top