The Pack-Line Defense

[schoosier]

Personally, I don't like this defense compared to good old fashioned man to man.

On 7/18/2017 at 1:40 PM, Stuhoo said:

 

Not necessarily like a match up zone or a sagging man to man, though there are commonalities:

A matchup zone usually pressures more than this defense off the ball and relies on regular switching to allow for help defense. This defense relies on help, not switching.

A sagging man to man does not pressure the ball or the immediate pass recipient so heavily. The pack-line pressures the ball handler heavily and dares the pass recipient to drive, while forcing that pass recipient into the pack.

This defense doesn't "trap" per se, but it is designed to constantly create help situations whereby multiple defenders are available to maximize the defense near the basket. Can be susceptible to a great catch and shoot player, and doesn't produce as many turnovers and transition opportunities. 

 

I appreciate the explanation, but it sure looks and smells like the old match up zone. If you watch the video, the placement of the other off ball players is the same as a matchup zone. I also don't remember switching much in a match up zone either since the off defenders aren't closely guarding their men. The real difference I see is forcing the ball into the middle or "pack" vs straight up man for the on ball defender. I'm also not sold on devaluing offensive boards, especially if we have a lineup full of long bodies where at least 2 should be able to get back on defense and stop fast breaks. Just my $.02.

[RBB89]

On 7/20/2017 at 9:32 AM, schoosier said:

Personally, I don't like this defense compared to good old fashioned man to man.

I appreciate the explanation, but it sure looks and smells like the old match up zone. If you watch the video, the placement of the other off ball players is the same as a matchup zone. I also don't remember switching much in a match up zone either since the off defenders aren't closely guarding their men. The real difference I see is forcing the ball into the middle or "pack" vs straight up man for the on ball defender. I'm also not sold on devaluing offensive boards, especially if we have a lineup full of long bodies where at least 2 should be able to get back on defense and stop fast breaks. Just my $.02.

Arizona, Dayton, and Virginia use this and are very successful and efficient defensively pretty much every year. Last year, their defensive efficiency ratings were as follows: 47th, 27th, and 5th. I will take that in a heartbeat.

It is man-to-man. A very stingy man-to-man. I'm not sure you really understand what it is. There are several videos on YouTube. And again, it's very effective when done correctly.

[lillurk]

1 hour ago, RBB89 said:

Arizona, Dayton, and Virginia use this and are very successful and efficient defensively pretty much every year. Last year, their defensive efficiency ratings were as follows: 47th, 27th, and 5th. I will take that in a heartbeat.

It is man-to-man. A very stingy man-to-man. I'm not sure you really understand what it is. There are several videos on YouTube. And again, it's very effective when done correctly.

Yeah, if pack-line isn't man-to-man I'm not sure what is?

[Stuhoo]

Yeah, if pack-line isn't man-to-man I'm not sure what is?

It IS a man to man. It's a man to man that de-emphasizes pressuring certain areas on the floor, and emphasizes certain areas.

[lillurk]

29 minutes ago, Stuhoo said:

 

It IS a man to man. It's a man to man that de-emphasizes pressuring certain areas on the floor, and emphasizes certain areas.

 

That's my point, too. Any version of man (zone, too) makes implementation choices: full- or half-court, switch all, some, or no screens, how both the big and small defender react to ball screens, try to deny baseline drives, trap corners, and many more. Pack line is a set of choices among those — a school of thought of man-to-man, created by Dick Bennett.

[schoosier]

5 hours ago, RBB89 said:

Arizona, Dayton, and Virginia use this and are very successful and efficient defensively pretty much every year. Last year, their defensive efficiency ratings were as follows: 47th, 27th, and 5th. I will take that in a heartbeat.

It is man-to-man. A very stingy man-to-man. I'm not sure you really understand what it is. There are several videos on YouTube. And again, it's very effective when done correctly.

No worries. That's the reason I asked for further clarification. I would also state a regular man to man or match up zone is also  very effective when done correctly. A good coach would exploit this pack line defense as long as he had the three point shooters to do it. How many championships did this type of defense win last year?

[mdn82]

No worries. That's the reason I asked for further clarification. I would also state a regular man to man or match up zone is also  very effective when done correctly. A good coach would exploit this pack line defense as long as he had the three point shooters to do it. How many championships did this type of defense win last year?

A good coach could exploit every defense, but they won't. I think most any defense will look good if there is commitment and decent coaching involved. UNC wasn't a good defensive team for most of the year and essentially plays a match up zone. Not sure why ask how man titles were won with it last year?


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[Brass Cannon]

46 minutes ago, schoosier said:

No worries. That's the reason I asked for further clarification. I would also state a regular man to man or match up zone is also  very effective when done correctly. A good coach would exploit this pack line defense as long as he had the three point shooters to do it. How many championships did this type of defense win last year?

2 regular season and 1 conference tourney off of my head. 

[Stuhoo]

No worries. That's the reason I asked for further clarification. I would also state a regular man to man or match up zone is also  very effective when done correctly. A good coach would exploit this pack line defense as long as he had the three point shooters to do it. How many championships did this type of defense win last year?

Exactly 113.48 titles last year, more or less. ;)

[schoosier]

1 hour ago, mdn82 said:

A good coach could exploit every defense, but they won't. I think most any defense will look good if there is commitment and decent coaching involved. UNC wasn't a good defensive team for most of the year and essentially plays a match up zone. Not sure why ask how man titles were won with it last year?


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Combined with a standard man defense, this pack line could be successful. Using it with other variations like trapping, pressing, etc... is where I could see sustained success. I think if it's what you bring every game, it would be easy to plan for and beat with good shooters. I mentioned championships only because I don't believe using this gimick type d will result in many.

[schoosier]

2 hours ago, Brass Cannon said:

2 regular season and 1 conference tourney off of my head. 

Curious how many were won with a straight up man or match up? 

[mdn82]

Combined with a standard man defense, this pack line could be successful. Using it with other variations like trapping, pressing, etc... is where I could see sustained success. I think if it's what you bring every game, it would be easy to plan for and beat with good shooters. I mentioned championships only because I don't believe using this gimick type d will result in many.

Ah. I don't think any defense is just straight up matchup man and that's it. There are wrinkles to every defense in what they attempt to accomplish. Ours is a man that gets out on ball and packs the paint forcing rotations on the perimeter. In a sense similar to the matchup zone, which is what UNC just won with last year. The thing I am excited about is not having 5 defenders running in circles looking lost.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[Class of '66 Old Fart]

24 minutes ago, mdn82 said:

Ah. I don't think any defense is just straight up matchup man and that's it. There are wrinkles to every defense in what they attempt to accomplish. Ours is a man that gets out on ball and packs the paint forcing rotations on the perimeter. In a sense similar to the matchup zone, which is what UNC just won with last year. The thing I am excited about is not having 5 defenders running in circles looking lost.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Or switching from man-to-man to zone in the middle of a possession.

[JSHoosier]

19 minutes ago, Class of '66 Old Fart said:

Or switching from man-to-man to zone in the middle of a possession.

Hey, it created confusion; it just confused the wrong team.  One of many things I won't miss about that staff, they couldn't even teach a competent man-to-man and insisted on trying to complicate things.

[Brass Cannon]

3 hours ago, schoosier said:

Curious how many were won with a straight up man or match up? 

Probably more simply because more teams use it. 

[schoosier]

2 hours ago, mdn82 said:

The thing I am excited about is not having 5 defenders running in circles looking lost.

I am also excited not seeing this anymore. We have gone 2 decades playing mostly matador defense except during the Sampson years and the one abberation of Creans next to last year after we lost JB2. I'm all in to see what Arch can teach which should be a huge upgrade.

[HoosierAloha]

Is it really a gimmick defense? It's more of slightly different principals on a man to man defense.

[RBB89]

8 hours ago, HoosierAloha said:

Is it really a gimmick defense? It's more of slightly different principals on a man to man defense.

You're right. I'm surprised more people haven't heard of this.

[Stuhoo]

9 hours ago, Fkfootball1 said:

I am all in favor of a gimmick defense as long as it's better than the past 9 years. I'm sure they won't need to hold up signs that say "call out screens."

Sent from my SM-G935P using BtownBanners mobile app
 

 

Here is a picture of what we will never see again. Good lord the people in that picture look equal parts embarrassed and depressed.

 

 

 Follow