Struggles against the zone

[MDSpider8]

Figured this deserved its own thread. It’s been pretty concerning to see how much we’ve struggled against zone defense this year. Both of our losses came against teams that played zone most of the game. Furman ran a 1-3-1 and Elon played a matchup zone, and both were extremely effective against us.

What makes it more frustrating is that this really hasn’t been a shooting problem. We shot well enough in both games to win. Instead, the zone seems to completely throw us out of our offensive rhythm and we commit way too many unforced errors. We had 17 turnovers against Furman and 20 against Elon, many of which were live-ball turnovers as a result of forced passes, guys not on the same page, etc.

It's clear that this team can function very well offensively when they can run the classic Mooney sets against man defense, but when they're forced to be more fluid and create against a zone, the turnovers pile up like crazy. It's especially frustrating considering how experienced this team is. Guys like Johnston, Tyne, Walz, Beagle, Lopez, Daughtry, Tanner and others should be able to efficiently attack a zone, but so far it hasn’t happened.

Would love if we could get some answers from Mooney about what we're doing to fix this, but I'm sure that won't happen....If I were an opposing A10 coach, especially at an equal/lesser team, I would run a zone against us until we prove that we can run a competent offense without turning the ball over all the time.

 

[Plydogg]

In our wins we’ve averaged 10.4 turnovers per game compared to 18.5 in the two losses. Against both Furman and Elon we win if we have 8 more shots during the game.

The turnovers aren’t steals either, they’re truly unforced. In tennis it’s an unforced error and usually when those pile up you’re losing the match. So many lazy passes yesterday.

 

[sman]

it's pretty mind boggling to me that so many coaches who now days are with their teams all summer and fall typically just use their one standard man to man defense exclusively and aren't prepared to change things up when they play a team like us who clearly hasn't handled zones effectively.

 

[SensibleSpider]

it's pretty mind boggling to me that so many coaches who now days are with their teams all summer and fall typically just use their one standard man to man defense exclusively and aren't prepared to change things up when they play a team like us who clearly hasn't handled zones effectively.

Good call out sman. I've though the same thing. It's not hard to install multiple defenses over the summer and into the fall. Not sure why we don't see it more.

 

[*23*]

Beilein would roll out the 1-3-1 and it was very effective.

 

[RichmondNative]

it's pretty mind boggling to me that so many coaches who now days are with their teams all summer and fall typically just use their one standard man to man defense exclusively and aren't prepared to change things up when they play a team like us who clearly hasn't handled zones effectively.

I figured it was some sort of coaching agreement. “Real teams play man-to-man”.

Every year I expect to see more teams zone up on the Spiders and it rarely happens.

 

[97spiderfan]

it's pretty mind boggling to me that so many coaches who now days are with their teams all summer and fall typically just use their one standard man to man defense exclusively and aren't prepared to change things up when they play a team like us who clearly hasn't handled zones effectively.

Any coach who doesn't play at least some zone against us, I immediately question their abilities.

 

[9Legs]

Mooney in his tenure of 50+years has never figured out how to attack a zone defense!!!!
He needs to attend a high school camp this summer.
Same ole Same Ol!!!

 

[PhillySpider]

Good call out sman. I've though the same thing. It's not hard to install multiple defenses over the summer and into the fall. Not sure why we don't see it more.

Its actually much harder than you might think to install multiple defenses. Its way more than just a formation (like a 2-3), its the way you ask people to play in a man vs zone ( for example, in zone you watch the ball primarily to know where to move and pick up the players peripherally, but in man, you watch your man primarily and see the ball peripherally and there are a lot of other differences). That's very difficult to instill in players and then have them play "naturally" (i.e. without thinking) in both. The result can often be you aren't very good at either and the best case is probably you are OK at both but not great at either. Its not all that doable to be good at both and just playing zone against a team like us (one that sucks against zone) won't automatically stop us if your zone is poor. I think both teams we played play use their zones (and both are pretty nuanced) as there primary/base defense so they are good at it!

 

[PhillySpider]

And I absolutely hate our zone offense. Its the same zone offense we used to run with our younger AAU teams and we abandoned it because it sucks! The zone offense we run settles way way too much for perimeter offense. Hate that to start with but once you run it for a bit and the other team realizes that we aren't threatening inside, the zone just naturally extends and becomes even more difficult to beat. Do you ever see us get the ball to the short corner and then pass to a diving post player etc. Everyone knows you have to attack a zone from inside out, but for us the "inside" is almost exclusively the free throw line from elbow to elbow. I also don't ever see us try to penetrate by getting to a seam in the zone and forcing the zone to adjust. I think this last one is remnant of Mooneyball of the last 20 years because penetrating a zone can lead to turnovers and he'd generally rather settle for bad shots and retreat on defense than risk turnovers by trying to attack seams and force the action.

 

[*23*]

I have made the point that over the past 10 years or so that our most effective offense was when Cayo was a beast in the low post. We had that inside out action you speak of, with both he and Grant very good threats inside. Was really really hoping Jrob would be that guy this season but doesn't seem to have the opportunity, or allowed to, or maybe the game? Walz, as discussed doesn't really have any moves to the basket, but is big and strong enough to be a threat on the occasion he is aggressive.
I agree that there needs to be a push and threat at the hoop to open up those 3's vs the zone. Still recall a game I saw us play at URI, with Cayo and Golden doing work down low early, which lead to wide wide open 3's for Sherod and Blake. Someone re-send that tape to Moon.

 

[sman]

I have made the point that over the past 10 years or so that our most effective offense was when Cayo was a beast in the low post. We had that inside out action you speak of, with both he and Grant very good threats inside. Was really really hoping Jrob would be that guy this season but doesn't seem to have the opportunity, or allowed to, or maybe the game?

no reason Daughtry isn't that guy. totally has the inside moves and strength.

 

[sman]

Its actually much harder than you might think to install multiple defenses.

totally respect your basketball knowledge, Philly. one of the best on here. I think you underestimate good basketball players in this case though. especially with the amount of time coaches have with them these days.

you can't tell me Tony Dobbins wouldn't be an awesome defender playing man or zone. we don't often recruit guys like him. but I believe anyone athletic and tough enough to be a good man defender can also be taught to be a great zone defender.

 

[PhillySpider]

totally respect your basketball knowledge, Philly. one of the best on here. I think you underestimate good basketball players in this case though. especially with the amount of time coaches have with them these days.

you can't tell me Tony Dobbins wouldn't be an awesome defender playing man or zone. we don't often recruit guys like him. but I believe anyone athletic and tough enough to be a good man defender can also be taught to be a great zone defender.

No question that anyone who is a good man defender can be a good (maybe/maybe not great) zone defender. What is tough is being both alternately and even tougher is having your whole team be able to bounce back and forth and be good at both (with more likely result being good at neither). It's the "conflict" created by the differences in so many nuanced ways that make it hard to be good at both alternately and not that zone is inherently harder.

And I get that coaches have more time than days gone by, but I think you underestimate the number of things coaches have to have their teams prepared for which is somewhat staggering (I think you'd be shocked for example at a college coach's "install playbook" that they draw up each year for things they need to get put in with their teams. Time to install and become good at a zone defense just for games against teams that stink against zone would be very, very low on the priority list and non-existent unless and until you think you are really good at noy only your base defense, but all you other "base" things. Again, the problem isn't could my kids be good at zone, its trying to do it alongside your very different base defense and putting in all your other "base" things and making sure you are really good at them. And the same holds for zone offense. We know we will see mostly man all year just by knowing the schedule and almost certainly choose not to devote too much time to the zone offense for the few games we might see a a good zone defense. Time is better spent in other places. Don't take that as a defense of Moon because as I have said, I hate our zone offense and a big step up would be to simply install and run a "better" (more modern etc) zone offense than what we run even without giving it any more time than what we do give it.

Two things I will add are: (1) we play man exclusively in our AAU programs (with many D1 recruits) because that's what college coaches want to see on the recruiting trail - even if they coach zone as their primary defense -- and (2) its WAY easier to teach a kid who has been playing man defense to be good in zone than it is to teach someone who had been playing zone to be a good man defender. Night and day different. Which is why we only run man (so our kids are best prepared for next level) and why we literally beg the youth coaches in our feeder programs to not run zone. Running zone as your base defense any time before varsity level of HS is a developmental crime (and even that is too early if you have players who want to play outside of HS or after High School.

 

[sman]

it's hard to teach a whole lot of anything in AAU. there's just not enough time unless your program is a lot different than my kid's was. he was getting 2 practices per week until the tournaments started, then one.

college coaches are with these kids 5 days a week in the offseason for upwards of 5 months. I haven't noticed many with a deep playbook ... certainly not UR from what I can tell. it's one defense and pretty much one offense. we don't even see the inbounds plays that TJ killed it with anymore.

 

[*23*]

its WAY easier to teach a kid who has been playing man defense to be good in zone than it is to teach someone who had been playing zone to be a good man defender. Night and day different. Which is why we only run man (so our kids are best prepared for next level) and why we literally beg the youth coaches in our feeder programs to not run zone. Running zone as your base defense any time before varsity level of HS is a developmental crime (and even that is too early if you have players who want to play outside of HS or after High School.

I feel like for all the hype and praise Jim Boheim got, this is one reason he didn't have more stars in the NBA. His zone worked great, and sure carmelo Anthony and a few guys did good in the NBA, but just seemed like he had a lot of 4/5 star guys that did not.

When I coached travel - my most effective defense was a 3-2 zone, but I had a core of guys for 3-5 years that understood how to play it. I still made them play man at the start of every quarter - and really only reverted to the zone when we were out matched badly with foot speed.

 

[Arachnid]

I do not understand why more teams do not press and switch defenses. Make the opposition eat 9 seconds bringing the ball across the mid. Then have them face an unknown D and take more seconds to determine the type D. So how much time left on 30 second clock?
Think about our own team-the weave would run and then what?

 

[KE Spider]

Reading these posts, feel like Tarrant must have been a savant. His teams could run multiple defenses effectively. Opposition never knew what to expect out of a time out. Spiders need more of that.

 

[72Spider]

Would love to see us occasionally employ an aggressive full court press just to catch the other team off guard. The one we use traps once and then releases just to slow them down and burn clock.

 

[Gallipoli]

Its actually much harder than you might think to install multiple defenses.

Dick Tarrant's teams were pretty good at it. This was a hallmark of Coach Tarrant's teams. His teams were constantly switching defenses.