Why not a zone?

[MadDog]

Curious what you all think... as I watched the game slowly slip away and as they dribbled right by us for layups and fouls, and as all our bigs where in foul trouble, why didn't we show a zone for a couple of possessions? I think we should have done something to have changed the pace. I don't remember us getting a stop in the last 4 minutes of the game. I also don't remember us playing a single possession of zone the whole game.

[jocoshock]

Dane Brumagin score 76 points in the previous two games. He would have killed us in a zone... GM had the right plan for UMKC defensively.... put 6'9" Aaron Ellis on him and deny him the ball at all costs...

The few times Brumagin got open looks off picks and screens, he nailed his shot.... We just lost our energy and focus midway through the second half... and UMKC smelled blood...

Blackwell also has the ability to drain the 3. It was really Blackwell and their point guard that did us in, and with 3 guys who can it the three, zone would not have worked last night. It was our offense (or lack thereof) that cost us the game more than our defense, but in the end, the defense failed as well.

Like I said in another post, the last 10 minutes of that game was like watching the Chiefs play.. Offense is crap, and finally the defense starts to crack in the fourth quarter as well...

[SB Shock]

I'd agree with everything Joco said.

[capnkirk]

I agree maddog. I kept asking where is the zone defense? I would rather get beat by 3 pointers than layups.

[Ricky Del Rio]

Many on this fine forum wanted to run Coach Turgeon out of town for not playing zone, will Coach Marshall be right behind?

Many on this fine forum wanted to run Coach Turgeon out of town for poor game management, will Coach Marshall be right behind?

Just wondering.

[60Shock]

Marshall is (and he should be) under the "Honeymoon Umbrella." He, like any coach, deserves several years to prove himself.

He didn't start with much and for various reasons the majority of the new players he recruited, along with most returnees, are struggling. The major problem is that he was anointed as godlike before he even won a game and expectations were unrealistic.

I had hoped we would have started to turn it around by now, but this team still remains a work in progress and is at best showing none to limited improvement.

[JVShocker_old]

I, too, would have liked to see a little zone.

I'd rather someone hit a 3ball with a hand in their face than get a layup, 2, 4, 6, or even 8 foot shot. The odds are in your favor, knowing that as you move in, your shooting percentage will increase. And, add on to that the likelihood of the defensive player comitting a foul on dribble penetration, and, well, that's why. I could post a list of two dozen schools who either beat us or nearly beat us in the waning moments with dribble penetration in the last 10 years.

The list isn't nearly as long for those teams who hit a 3 ball to win it late - even if they were memorable (in a bad way.) I guess I'd rather say "darn that ol' #24 for hitting a fadeaway 3 ball to win against us, than hear myself repeatedly saying "why can't we play zone for a possession or two, or three, after watching the same 1 or 2 guys repeatedly drive into the lane for easy shots or trips to the FT line.

[Maggie]

A zone against this team would not have helped matters. UMKC shot a good percentage in the second half against a man D – they would have torn apart a zone. Marshall had the right game plan, the players just did not execute. As for the dribble penetration by UMKC – blame the players at the 1, 2 and 3 spots – they didn't keep their man in front of them. Which, by the way, is something that Marshall said they would have to do during the pre-game interview.

[jocoshock]

Brumagin averaged 38 points a game the two previous games. He got 13 against our man-to-man.

What would the losing margin have been if we had played zone?

And would you have rather lost by 3, or 23? to UMKC?


That's what it would have been....

[1972Shocker]

We held our last 2 opponents to 60 poitns and 59 points and lost both games. We shot 8-46 (17.4%) from the 3 point line.

Holding teams to 60 points should be good enough to win most games.

We clearly lost these two games because we could not throw it in the ocean.

We have two choices, quit shooting the 3 and try to pound the ball inside or keep shooitng the three (perhaps a little more selectively) and hope we regain a reasonable percentage.

Pounding the ball inside is probably not a great option becuase our inside game is no better than our perimenter game . In particular, it probably won't work against a team like our upcoming opponent LSU.

To be successful we need to continue to hold teams to relatively low scoring totals (I'll take 60 most games), we are bound to shoot better than 17% most games and we need to try to get more baskets in transition (easy to say, not always easy to do). If we continue to shoot 17% from the perimeter this year (which I doubt will happen) then we are in for a long, long year, regardless of whether we play zone, man-to-man, box-and-one, triangle-and-two, full court press, half-court trap, or half-court sag.

:goshocks:

[RockChalkWUShock]

I don't think our problem is defense, it's scoring.

my $.02

[newshock1234]

I don't think our problem is defense, it's scoring.

my $.02

agreed

[rrshock]

Many on this fine forum wanted to run Coach Turgeon out of town for not playing zone, will Coach Marshall be right behind?

Many on this fine forum wanted to run Coach Turgeon out of town for poor game management, will Coach Marshall be right behind?

Just wondering.

Difference being that they wanted to run Turgeon out because after 7 years, he should have had the right guys for his system. Coach Marshall, as it becomes more and more obvious, doesn't have that yet.

Like was mentioned, why run a zone when they are lighting up a m2m defense. It wouldn't have been near as close as it turned out.

Coach Marshall can only manage what he has, and since it doesn't appear he has much to work with, that is gonna be hard. We must give him time and our support so that he can accomplish what he needs to do.

[MadDog]

I wasn't suggesting that we should have gone to a zone for the whole game. I thought it might be good to give them a different look on a possession or two to slow them down or change the pace of the game. After all, they hit what, 6 of 8 three's the second half and drove on us at will? Our man wasn't stopping the threes, and it wasn't stopping the drives. Maybe the zone could have at least slowed down the drives.

Also, has everyone forgotten the App State zone we ran the 2nd half? As I recall it was very effective, although a different kind of team admittedly...

[JVShocker_old]

Also, has everyone forgotten the App State zone we ran the 2nd half? As I recall it was very effective, although a different kind of team admittedly...

Exactly. Just because someone can make the 3, doesn't mean they're always going to make it - it's a matter of confidence and flow for most young players (both of which we seem to be lacking at the moment.) By most arguments, we should be shooting a heck of a lot better than we are, seeing how open some of the shots have been. Miss a wide open 3ball, and maybe you start to doubt. Hit one going away with tight coverage and you boost your confidence for the next one. Shooting with a man on you is different than shooting over the top of a zone.

Mix things up once in a while - one or two possessions - that's all I wanted to see. Kinf od like UTA calling a timeout on every run we made in the game at Wichita to get the crowd out of it and bring the WSU players back down to earth. I'm not bagging on Marshall, he's the coach, it's just a "preference" of mine - and I still hope to see things mixed up once in a while regardless of who we are playing.