Zone Defense

[no-look]

Is the best one (in general) the 1-3-1?    Better than 2-3?  Pros and cons.....

[AggiesAreWe]

The best zone defense is the one that keeps your opponent from scoring more points than you do. ;D


In all honesty, I like man-to-man. ;)

[Honest Abe]

Both are effective. Mainly depends on the other team's strong/weak points, and how well u match up against them.

[BLUEDOVE3]

[quote name="no-look" post="1034529" timestamp="1313199748"]
Is the best one (in general) the 1-3-1?    Better than 2-3?  Pros and cons.....
[/quote]MAN TO MAN.

[hjhawks]

If played correctly, a zone is a man to man with lots of switching... and at times a man to man is a zone (help side, away from ball)... Good defensive teams make it hard to distinguish what defense is being played....

The thought that you stand in a 2-3 or 1-3-1 set up makes it REALLY easy to get good looks and easy buckets...

[True Blue]

I have not had much experance with bigger schools. But in the smaller ones I like to play a box in one, Most schools have one maybe two strong players, and then other roll players . I like to take the ball out of their star players hand and have them try and beat me with their roll players. But to say you stay man on man or just run a Zone realy hurts your players.

[BLUEDOVE3]

To play at a major level you have to  know how to play man to man. You can't hide in a zone forever.

[24 over par]

[quote name="BLUEDOVE3" post="1035209" timestamp="1313291444"]
To play at a major level you have to  know how to play man to man. You can't hide in a zone forever.
[/quote]so true

[no-look]

If you can play a good man then you should be able also to play a good zone.....I like man but a zone is needed at times against certain teams.....

[team first]

[quote name="BLUEDOVE3" post="1035209" timestamp="1313291444"]
To play at a major level you have to  know how to play man to man. You can't hide in a zone forever.
[/quote]

Tell that to the cuse

[Guest speechless]

Who knew that all this time Jim Boeheim didn't know what he was doing?

[stevenash]

[quote name="speechless" post="1035306" timestamp="1313333855"]
Who knew that all this time Jim Boeheim didn't know what he was doing?
[/quote]

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I know that a lot of people think that man to man is the only way to go.  I would think that you need to be effective at both approaches to succeed today.  NBA uses zone quite a bit (albeit disguised)  Gotta believe there is good reason for it if they use it at that level.

[whsalum]

The key is to be ACTIVE in the zone.A ton of the most successful high school programs play a lot of zone with traps at the 3/4 and 1/2 court intervals.If it's played corrrectly you aren't hiding in a zone, just the opposite.

[Guest speechless]

Tom Thibodeaux....the best defensive coach in the NBA and NBA coach of the year has made backside zone defense "the way to play" in the NBA.  In other words, you are matched up on the ball side but, if you are away from the ball then you overload to the ball side employing zone rotations.

Go ask ANY college coach what defense they don't want to see night in and night out and they will tell you "zone".  They can't run their sets against zone.  It forces teams to be more stagnant and less movement and takes the game out of the coaches hands and puts it into the hands of the players (which college coaches really hate).

[AggiesAreWe]

I like man defense.

[stevenash]

I believe that Tom Thibodeaux and Jim Boeheim are adequate documentation that there is a place for a zone defense in the game today.  Seems to me that a team ought to employ whatever defense causes the most trouble for the opposing team. (I am more than confident that HJ would not have beaten Cleveland in each of the past two seasons playoff games if they had gone man to man entirely for both games) Gonna be difficult for a team comprised of mostly skill oriented(and only average athleticism at best) players to defend a good group of athletes for an entire game in a man to man defense.

[AggiesAreWe]

I like man defense.

[stevenash]

Really?

[AggiesAreWe]

[quote name="stevenash" post="1035370" timestamp="1313345021"]
Really?
[/quote]

Ah huh.

[stevenash]

If you were coaching a team that plays man to man and you were down 15 at the half, your best player had 4 fouls and the next two best players each had three fouls, would you remain in the man to man defense?

[AggiesAreWe]

[quote name="stevenash" post="1035372" timestamp="1313345381"]
If you were coaching a team that plays man to man and you were down 15 at the half, your best player had 4 fouls and the next two best players each had three fouls, would you remain in the man to man defense?
[/quote]


Nope and I would be scratching that particular officiating crew from my future games. ;)

I still like man defense. ;D


BTW, I can still come out in the 2nd half in man because of my deep bench. ;) ;D

[stevenash]

If you are that deep, I predict an undefeated season for you.  I was foolishly thinking that if your best players couldnt get it done in man to man, it might be reasonable to assume that their replacements would not be able to overcome a 15 point deficit.  But, then again, maybe you employ the Celtic theory where the next sub is better than the starter he replaced except that, in this case, the next three were the superior players.

[AggiesAreWe]

[quote name="stevenash" post="1035378" timestamp="1313347041"]
If you are that deep, I predict an undefeated season for you.  I was foolishly thinking that if your best players couldnt get it done in man to man, it might be reasonable to assume that their replacements would not be able to overcome a 15 point deficit.  But, then again, maybe you employ the Celtic theory where the next sub is better than the starter he replaced except that, in this case, the next three were the superior players.
[/quote]


Yep, you can predict and be foolish. ;D

[stevenash]

You are so right - on the other side, is there even the "slightest possibility" that you may not be as "deep" as you believe?

[AggiesAreWe]

[quote name="stevenash" post="1035383" timestamp="1313348073"]
You are so right - on the other side, is there even the "slightest possibility" that you may not be as "deep" as you believe?
[/quote]


I never look on the "left side" of things. ;) ;D