should we have played zone

[Benja]

I think what happened today was a lot like what happened when we played Duke, for example. Not quite as extreme of an instance but CU's guards are very good and skilled. Jake is a great player and defender, especially off the ball, but we just don't have a ton of athleticism and length defending the perimeter. Southwell has great potential as a defender but he's a frosh and just not there yet especially strength wise. Sprads is Sprads, god bless his soul. Burks and Higgins were able to lob mid-range jump shots and layups over our guards all day and there wasn't much we could do to disrupt them in almost any one-on-one situation.

You can talk about post defender help all you want but it's not something you want to have to completely rely on. A Dom Sutton type defender would have been huge to have out there on days like today.

[RightMeow]

In the big games we won, like KU, Frank did a good job of switching to zone or trap out of timeouts to disrupt their offense for a series or two.  Didn't see any of that gamesmanship from Frank today.  He wasn't into it and neither were the players.

[PowercatPat]

Peterson was a big reason why our defense looked so bad today.

lol.  keep on 'tarding, powercatpat.

while i'll agree powercatpat is a tard, 95 got beat all day of defense.  fact.

Thanks bro.

[kso_FAN]

The points about playing zone are valid, we definitely needed to do something to disrupt Higgins and Burks. I really thought our initial plan was good, and CU struggled the first 5 minutes or so. But then they began driving with Burks and we couldn't contain him. We had Pullen on Knutson much of the first half and completely took him away. But Burks has 18. Did a decent job on Higgins, though he didn't get a ton of touches.

Then the 2nd half when Pullen did a great job on Burks, CU simply got the ball to Higgins and let him drive. Frank threw McGruder, Southwell, and 95 all on him, and none could guard him. I agree that 95 didn't play well, but to his defense its a bad match-up. Higgins is so much longer it made it easy for him to get shots off over him, but he also got shots up over Southwell and McGruds, many of them tough shots.

In any case, our 2nd half defense was pathetic. The first half wasn't great, but it was winnable if we maintained it and hit some shots. We didn't and we know what happened.

1st half:
   Pace   PPP   eFG%   TO%   OR%   FTR
KSU   33   1.19   56.7%   21.3%   40.0%   20.0%
CU   33   1.13   58.0%   27.4%   38.5%   40.0%

2nd half:
   Pace   PPP   eFG%   TO%   OR%   FTR
KSU   35   1.02   40.3%   11.3%   34.6%   27.8%
CU   35   1.41   70.0%   19.8%   40.0%   68.0%

Totals:
   Pace   PPP   eFG%   TO%   OR%   FTR
KSU   69   1.09   47.7%   16.0%   36.6%   24.2%
CU   69   1.27   64.0%   23.3%   39.1%   54.0%

The 2nd half we got beat in every phase. It looked a lot like the game in Manhattan, and I didn't see that coming at all. My initial thought was the only way CU would beat us was if they had a great offensive half like they did vs UT and they did.

[sonofdaxjones]

Frank got torn a new one against CU . . . for the 3rd time this season.

This isn't that hard, he got schooled.

[Rage Against the McKee]

CU took JHR all the way out to the 3 point line and then raped him several times. A zone would have at least prevented that.

[jaa1025]

What about sagging the defenders off of Higgins/Burks a bit? Not obscene, but there's no reason to guard those two players 40 feet from the basket. If they drop back to the 3, that would still provide adequate defense on the 3 but gives the defender a chance against the penetration. Same thing happened against Duke. 

[kso_FAN]

What about sagging the defenders off of Higgins/Burks a bit? Not obscene, but there's no reason to guard those two players 40 feet from the basket. If they drop back to the 3, that would still provide adequate defense on the 3 but gives the defender a chance against the penetration. Same thing happened against Duke. 

Well, dax is right, Boyle owned Frank yesterday. I thought our original plan was sound, and it was a similar approach to what we used in Boulder when we defended CU very well. They just used penetration much better and Frank didn't have an answer.

[1/64th]

There is a surprisingly large amount of LBBIQ going on in this thread.  If you say a zone would have been worse than our man defense yesterday, I no longer respect your basketball opinions.  It's defense 101.  'tards. 

[Winters]

There is a surprisingly large amount of LBBIQ going on in this thread.  If you say a zone would have been worse than our man defense yesterday, I no longer respect your basketball opinions.  It's defense 101.  'tards. 

[MakeItRain]

What about sagging the defenders off of Higgins/Burks a bit? Not obscene, but there's no reason to guard those two players 40 feet from the basket. If they drop back to the 3, that would still provide adequate defense on the 3 but gives the defender a chance against the penetration. Same thing happened against Duke. 

Players of this calibre won't be stopped from getting where they need to go by having a defender simply sagging off a bit.  No offense but I've never seen that work against a skilled college basketball player.

[kso_FAN]

There is a surprisingly large amount of LBBIQ going on in this thread.  If you say a zone would have been worse than our man defense yesterday, I no longer respect your basketball opinions.  It's defense 101.  'tards.  

I don't disagree with your theory, but I'm mainly going off of the way this team has played zone this year, not the effectiveness of a zone vs what CU was trying to do as sound basketball strategy. We simply haven't been very good at it and the likelyhood of us giving Knutson a wide open shot on back to back trips is likely based on how we've played zone this year. This team has been by far Frank's worst team and as a result he has went away from it more and more this year and stuck (stubbornly at times) to his man to man principles.

[MakeItRain]

There is a surprisingly large amount of LBBIQ going on in this thread.  If you say a zone would have been worse than our man defense yesterday, I no longer respect your basketball opinions.  It's defense 101.  'tards. 

I wouldn't even quantify it as a lack of BBIQ, its worse, a lack of common sense.  Even given the ability of retrospect, to see that defensive performance and not see that we needed to try something different, that person shouldn't be allowed to operate a motor vehicle or be around sharp objects, ever.

[MakeItRain]

There is a surprisingly large amount of LBBIQ going on in this thread.  If you say a zone would have been worse than our man defense yesterday, I no longer respect your basketball opinions.  It's defense 101.  'tards.  

I don't disagree with your theory, but I'm mainly going off of the way this team has played zone this year, not the effectiveness of a zone vs what CU was trying to do as sound basketball strategy. We simply haven't been very good at it and the likelyhood of us giving Knutson a wide open shot on back to back trips is likely based on how we've played zone this year. This team has been by far Frank's worst team and as a result he has went away from it more and more this year and stuck (stubbornly at times) to his man to man principles.

I don't think anyone is resolute in the fact that it would have worked, but it should have been attempted.

[kso_FAN]

I don't think anyone is resolute in the fact that it would have worked, but it should have been attempted.

Yeah, coaches are egotistical creatures of habit. I'm not surprised by Frank's stubbornness. This is where coaches bring out the "execution" card. And Jake pretty much did that, so I'm sure that's the speech they heard in the locker room afterward.

[kougar24]

There is a surprisingly large amount of LBBIQ going on in this thread.  If you say a zone would have been worse than our man defense yesterday, I no longer respect your basketball opinions.  It's defense 101.  'tards. 

I wouldn't even quantify it as a lack of BBIQ, its worse, a lack of common sense.  Even given the ability of retrospect, to see that defensive performance and not see that we needed to try something different, that person shouldn't be allowed to operate a motor vehicle or be around sharp objects, ever.

"Doing something different" isn't a solution to the problem in and of itself.

[1/64th]

There is a surprisingly large amount of LBBIQ going on in this thread.  If you say a zone would have been worse than our man defense yesterday, I no longer respect your basketball opinions.  It's defense 101.  'tards. 

I wouldn't even quantify it as a lack of BBIQ, its worse, a lack of common sense.  Even given the ability of retrospect, to see that defensive performance and not see that we needed to try something different, that person shouldn't be allowed to operate a motor vehicle or be around sharp objects, ever.

"Doing something different" isn't a solution to the problem in and of itself.

This is what I mean.  Good lord.   

_fan and MIR are right.  I'm not saying that we would have won or even slowed them down (although I think it would have slowed them down), but when your man defense is that bad, you have to switch it up.  Play a match up zone, play a 1-3-1, do something other than the same thing that is not working.  So yes kougs, doing something different isn't the solution, but it's the start of a solution. 

[Emo EMAW]

They were keeping our bigs away from the bucket in our man scheme.  I remember at one point that one of their long guards was posting up with Sprads trying to keep him out, no where any help close...all the other personnel out by the arc.  If you don't have your bigs by the bucket you can't expect to out-rebound them.  Trying a zone with Curt and JHR sticking on the flanks of the paint would have been worth at least a try.  At least if they're going to try to drive we have an opportunity to get in the way and draw a charge.

[kougar24]

There is a surprisingly large amount of LBBIQ going on in this thread.  If you say a zone would have been worse than our man defense yesterday, I no longer respect your basketball opinions.  It's defense 101.  'tards. 

I wouldn't even quantify it as a lack of BBIQ, its worse, a lack of common sense.  Even given the ability of retrospect, to see that defensive performance and not see that we needed to try something different, that person shouldn't be allowed to operate a motor vehicle or be around sharp objects, ever.

"Doing something different" isn't a solution to the problem in and of itself.

This is what I mean.  Good lord.   

_fan and MIR are right.  I'm not saying that we would have won or even slowed them down (although I think it would have slowed them down), but when your man defense is that bad, you have to switch it up.  Play a match up zone, play a 1-3-1, do something other than the same thing that is not working.  So yes kougs, doing something different isn't the solution, but it's the start of a solution. 

Here's what you apparently don't get: the two things they were doing well were dribble penetration and perimeter shooting. Guess what those two things are? Zone killers.

Man was the correct defense. We just needed someone other than Pullen to step up and stop someone, and no one got it done.

So I guess Frank trying a zone in desperation might have made you feel better about his in-game coaching, but the score would have been the same or worse.

[pissclams]

trying to dribble drive against a zone sucks, very much.  not sure where kougs is coming from on this one.

also saying that dribble drives and outside shooting kill a zone is kind of like saying water is wet.  those things kill every type of defense.

do not like all of everyone's armchairing today.  reality is frank knew our guys were tired and wanted to give them a rest, he wanted to lose this game so we prep our Adorablemens for the tournament.

[1/64th]

There is a surprisingly large amount of LBBIQ going on in this thread.  If you say a zone would have been worse than our man defense yesterday, I no longer respect your basketball opinions.  It's defense 101.  'tards. 

I wouldn't even quantify it as a lack of BBIQ, its worse, a lack of common sense.  Even given the ability of retrospect, to see that defensive performance and not see that we needed to try something different, that person shouldn't be allowed to operate a motor vehicle or be around sharp objects, ever.

"Doing something different" isn't a solution to the problem in and of itself.

This is what I mean.  Good lord.   

_fan and MIR are right.  I'm not saying that we would have won or even slowed them down (although I think it would have slowed them down), but when your man defense is that bad, you have to switch it up.  Play a match up zone, play a 1-3-1, do something other than the same thing that is not working.  So yes kougs, doing something different isn't the solution, but it's the start of a solution. 

Here's what you apparently don't get: the two things they were doing well were dribble penetration and perimeter shooting. Guess what those two things are? Zone killers.

Man was the correct defense. We just needed someone other than Pullen to step up and stop someone, and no one got it done.

So I guess Frank trying a zone in desperation might have made you feel better about his in-game coaching, but the score would have been the same or worse.

You apparently are only aware of one kind of zone.  They had ZERO presence inside.  So you play an extended match up type zone, thus leaving your big men inside to alter shots/ rebound instead of having NOBODY inside to alter shots/rebound.  Let me guess, you didn't play basketball past 5th grade and the only zone you know is the 2-3 zone?  Thanks for playing.  

[kougar24]

There is a surprisingly large amount of LBBIQ going on in this thread.  If you say a zone would have been worse than our man defense yesterday, I no longer respect your basketball opinions.  It's defense 101.  'tards. 

I wouldn't even quantify it as a lack of BBIQ, its worse, a lack of common sense.  Even given the ability of retrospect, to see that defensive performance and not see that we needed to try something different, that person shouldn't be allowed to operate a motor vehicle or be around sharp objects, ever.

"Doing something different" isn't a solution to the problem in and of itself.

This is what I mean.  Good lord.   

_fan and MIR are right.  I'm not saying that we would have won or even slowed them down (although I think it would have slowed them down), but when your man defense is that bad, you have to switch it up.  Play a match up zone, play a 1-3-1, do something other than the same thing that is not working.  So yes kougs, doing something different isn't the solution, but it's the start of a solution. 

Here's what you apparently don't get: the two things they were doing well were dribble penetration and perimeter shooting. Guess what those two things are? Zone killers.

Man was the correct defense. We just needed someone other than Pullen to step up and stop someone, and no one got it done.

So I guess Frank trying a zone in desperation might have made you feel better about his in-game coaching, but the score would have been the same or worse.

You apparently are only aware of one kind of zone.  They had ZERO presence inside.  So you play an extended match up type zone, thus leaving your big men inside to alter shots/ rebound instead of having NOBODY inside to alter shots/rebound.  Let me guess, you didn't play basketball past 5th grade and the only zone you know is the 2-3 zone?  Thanks for playing. 

Our bigs were in the lane attempting to alter Burggins' shots; they shot over them. They were not going to be denied yesterday. An extended matchup zone would have simply let Burggins kill us with wide open 15-footers as opposed to contested 7-footers.

They had 2 NBA guards who were hitting from everywhere on the floor, plus role players who were hitting as well. We weren't going to win that game no matter what D we threw at them. The most effective D would have been a non-extended m2m to attempt to keep Burggins in front of us, but we know Frank isn't going to do that, so it was ballgame once Burggins realized they were hitting that day.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I really think a triangle and 2 would have been effective, but I'm not sure if I've ever seen Frank run that, so I don't even know if they practice it.

[Skipper44]

I really think a triangle and 2 would have been effective, but I'm not sure if I've ever seen Frank run that, so I don't even know if they practice it.

Kuh Newtson would of rained 3s on a triangle and 2

[sys]

1st half:
   Pace   PPP   eFG%   TO%   OR%   FTR
KSU   33   1.19   56.7%   21.3%   40.0%   20.0%
CU   33   1.13   58.0%   27.4%   38.5%   40.0%

2nd half:
   Pace   PPP   eFG%   TO%   OR%   FTR
KSU   35   1.02   40.3%   11.3%   34.6%   27.8%
CU   35   1.41   70.0%   19.8%   40.0%   68.0%

throw out cu's 12 points on free throws and a layup in the last minute and a half and replace them with 3 points for the about 2 possessions they would have had without the free throws/pressure d, and kstate's defense/cu's offense were about equally effective in each half.