can change during a game, to say a zone, why the hell can't we ever make changes and adjust and maybe play a zone?
Hmmm... Three guesses, and the first starts with Coach...
SSPDTTA?
That's beyond my abbreviation speak.
Scum Sucking Pig Dogs That They Are!
Nice analysis (not!)
Why don't you tell us exactly what we did not do that we should have? Or what did we changed that did not work?
Like I've said a million times before, either we win or our coach is an idiot. We never actually lose a game, not in the 100+ years of MU basketball.
So stop the undirected primal screams because we loss and say what wasn't done. If you lack the basketball IQ to say what we actually did wrong, then accept the fact that playing #16 on their home court is a hard win and we came up short.
First, I've never called Buzz an idiot. I like Buzz and am very happy with him as our Coach. Just becuase I ask why we can't, maybe, play a zone when our two big men are in foul trouble does not mean I want to fire the coach. AnotherMU relax.
Second, "the fact that playing #16 on their home court is a hard win and we came up short" like the polls mean something and would that be the same team #16 team we beat by 22 points 12 days earlier?
Quote from: denverMU on January 24, 2011, 07:31:55 AM
First, I've never called Buzz an idiot. I like Buzz and am very happy with him as our Coach. Just becuase I ask why we can't, maybe, play a zone when our two big men are in foul trouble does not mean I want to fire the coach. AnotherMU relax.
Second, "the fact that playing #16 on their home court is a hard win and we came up short" like the polls mean something and would that be the same team #16 team we beat by 22 points 12 days earlier?
I'm not sure playing a zone against a good three-point shooting team - especially one that had suddenly found it's stroke - would have been the wisest of adjustments.
Quote from: denverMU on January 24, 2011, 07:31:55 AM
First, I've never called Buzz an idiot. I like Buzz and am very happy with him as our Coach. Just becuase I ask why we can't, maybe, play a zone when our two big men are in foul trouble does not mean I want to fire the coach. AnotherMU relax.
Second, "the fact that playing #16 on their home court is a hard win and we came up short" like the polls mean something and would that be the same team #16 team we beat by 22 points 12 days earlier?
ND has too many three point shooters to play zone. This would have been an awful idea.
Playing zone when you are the smaller, faster team....also not the accepted strategy.
We have some very good outside shooters (50% for the game) and it seemed to work just fine for them. Syracuse plays teams with great outside shooters and they play zone all the time. This myth of "you can't play a zone against a team with good outside shooters" is just that a "myth". Remember we had players in foul trouble and Hansborough was driving by our guards like they were not there.
Quote from: denverMU on January 24, 2011, 08:51:42 AM
We have some very good outside shooters (50% for the game) and it seemed to work just fine for them. Syracuse plays teams with great outside shooters and they play zone all the time. This myth of "you can't play a zone against a team with good outside shooters" is just that a "myth". Remember we had players in foul trouble and Hansborough was driving by our guards like they were not there.
About the only reason Hansborough was driving by our guards like they were not there - was because if we so much breathed on him (or any other ND player for that matter), we'd get whistled for a foul. Brey even said in his post game conference that we are "faster" than ND - pretty sure that Buycks or DJO have the footspeed to stay with Hansborough as they did in MKE. I'm not being critical of your argument by any means - just adding context.
I wouldn't have minded seeing MU try to switch to a zone to at least mix it up..but this hasn't been Buzz's M.O.
I actually think a zone would have been a good idea. It saves you from your foul trouble and changes the pace. It also causes rebounding problems though.
Quote from: Pakuni on January 24, 2011, 07:57:32 AM
I'm not sure playing a zone against a good three-point shooting team - especially one that had suddenly found it's stroke - would have been the wisest of adjustments.
Yet, we were hot shooting in the 1st half and UND's zone shut us down. A zone, or more so a junk zone--a box in one or triangle and two--sure would have shut down the "Hansbrough Lay-up Practice".
Quote from: Ners on January 24, 2011, 08:54:59 AM
About the only reason Hansborough was driving by our guards like they were not there - was because if we so much breathed on him (or any other ND player for that matter), we'd get whistled for a foul. Brey even said in his post game conference that we are "faster" than ND - pretty sure that Buycks or DJO have the footspeed to stay with Hansborough as they did in MKE. I'm not being critical of your argument by any means - just adding context.
I wouldn't have minded seeing MU try to switch to a zone to at least mix it up..but this hasn't been Buzz's M.O.
Another good reason to play zone, becuase the refs were calling it so tight.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on January 24, 2011, 09:04:47 AM
Yet, we were hot shooting in the 1st half and UND's zone shut us down. A zone, or more so a junk zone--a box in one or triangle and two--sure would have shut down the "Hansbrough Lay-up Practice".
Most of MU's successful perimeter shooting is the result of dribble penetration, or the threat of dribble penetration. The 2-3 zone took that away, throwing the offense of its rhythm.
Also, to the other point being made here ... a zone defense doesn't necessarily mean fewer fouls. And if it does, it's oftentimes because you're giving up open looks on the perimeter. Again, maybe not the best thing to do against ND.
Quote from: Pakuni on January 24, 2011, 09:15:15 AM
Most of MU's successful perimeter shooting is the result of dribble penetration, or the threat of dribble penetration. The 2-3 zone took that away, throwing the offense of its rhythm.
Also, to the other point being made here ... a zone defense doesn't necessarily mean fewer fouls. And if it does, it's oftentimes because you're giving up open looks on the perimeter. Again, maybe not the best thing to do against ND.
MU did use dribble penetration versus zones last year with kickouts for catch-and-shoot treys by Zar, Mo and Cooby (DJO). Unfortunately, DJO is being more closely accounted for by defenses this year and Caddy and Vander are not long-range threats at this point leaving Buycks whose trey shot is most effective off the dribble going to his left. Need to get the ball in the key and go from there.
Quote from: Pakuni on January 24, 2011, 09:15:15 AM
Most of MU's successful perimeter shooting is the result of dribble penetration, or the threat of dribble penetration. The 2-3 zone took that away, throwing the offense of its rhythm.
Also, to the other point being made here ... a zone defense doesn't necessarily mean fewer fouls. And if it does, it's oftentimes because you're giving up open looks on the perimeter. Again, maybe not the best thing to do against ND.
With Scott in there, so does ND's. When he was out, we could pressure Abro and Hansbrough and deny them on the perimeter. With Scott in there--the inside-outside threat he presents gives them more spacing. This isn't Goody's offense anymore.
Here is why I like MU in a zone, at least part of the time--more so a match-up zone with man responsiblities, we have new players whose strengths and experience is offense (high school, AAU and JUCO). They haven't had enough experience in good, base man-to-man in a defense which requires a lot of switching, rotations, and for defenders to cover a lot of ground on retreats from the perimeter or paint traps it calls for in Buzz's system. Look at JFB, he has slow lateral footspeed and Hansbrough was beating him off the dribble on rotations time and again. Otule on the perimeter to block and retreat on a top key switch is a lot of ground for him to cover and takes him out of his strength/value. Buycks and Jae still get lost on switches and blow-bys. Ii this their fault, or is the system we employ not geared to our talent on the floor? At times we play very good man defense and we should use our quickness, but at other times, the defensive system, based on our players on the floor, can be broken down easily. We need stops in the 2nd half, not just disruption hoping to getting turnovers on the perimeter.