Zone defense

[Tony Adragna 1]

What does everybody think about the zone defense Tom Crean continues to throw out there?  Personally, I hate it, and see no need for it.  A zone is used when you are athletically outmanned and you want to try and keep a team out of the paint.  I understand trying to make Iowa shoot from the outside, but they were tearing apart the zone and getting easy buckets on the inside, along with creating a rebounding disadvantage for the Hoosiers.  Personally, if Indiana is going to play a zone, I'd rather seem them in a half-court trap or something that utilizes their athleticism.

 

Thoughts?

[IUBB_Hoosiers 4]

I think you nailed it.  Zone worked best for Indiana when our lineup featured Kyle Taber, Tom Pritchard and Bobby Capobianco in the post.  Indiana is too athletic for zone now.  I'm sure coach Crean had his reasons for going zone, but I sure as hell don't see them.

 

I think your point of a half-court trap if Indiana decides to go zone is on point as well.  I would much rather see us attempt to trap and give up occasional open jumpers than playing a 2-3 zone and giving up every open shot.  Extremely frustrating.

[Will_Padgman 194]

I know at one point during a non-con game, the team went into a half court 1-3-1, which worked wonders. Granted, it was against a nobody, but on those rotations where I feel he is just throwing out a different look to confuse the opposition, why not use something that might actually confuse them?

[CrimsonClothing 2]

I agree Tony.  Not only is it not needed, but we defend with the zone so poorly.  It's almost like a team only has to revers the ball once on the perimeter and they have an open 3, and we have so many soft spots on the inside that get exploited for layups.  It's frustrating to watch.

[Courtsensetwo 0]

Agree, the only version I have liked this season is the 1-3-1.  That limits Hulls' exposure and makes the most of Yogi or Remy's plus CZ's skills.

[Andrew_114 105]

I don't necessarily agree that you only play a 2-3 zone with less athletic men. A 2-3 can be very active, although ours has not, but Syracuse is a great example, they are very long and athletic. I think if our players are active in the zone rather then use to rest on defense it could be effective. But as of right now we haven't been active and the zone was hurting us a lot, most noticeably against Iowa

[spinksy33 34]

While a zone is a good change of pace occasionally, I think it takes away aggression both offensively and defensively. How many zone teams win championships? Our man to man is much improved over years past and tends to speed up the game which is where we excel. Hope we stick with man to man.

[Hoosier_Eric 2]

Against these teams that we have a high chance of beating I am ok with using the zone. It allows Crean to get an in game look at what we are capable of with it, so that if we play a team that is tearing our man up it wont be the first time using it.  Now, will we run into a team that will give our man D that many problems? Probably not, but I dont mind using it in these games against Iowa and Penn State. Now if he starts using it unnecessarily against a better team then we will have problems.