You do not get rid of the 3 point shot. It has revolutionized the game. If anything I would extend the shot clock to 28-30 seconds, because teams are just getting into their offense with about 12 seconds nowadays. The Zone would ruin the game. It allows bad defenders, like a Bullard, to not get abused, and the non athletic, European players would flourish. There would be no more mismatches anymore. ------------------
Rudy T. and the rest of the coaches will not allow this. And plus, when Jordan makes it clear that he will not come back to a league of zone defenses, Stern and the suits will shutter, and quickly terminate this absurd idea. ------------------
At 38 with a gut that looks like mine, I would think Jordan would rather play zone defense. ------------------ Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb!
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. There is NOTHING wrong with the NBA. If they want to make changes, they should just get rid of the baskets. ------------------ Hakeem "The Dream" Olajuwon is the greatest player in the history of basketball. If you disagree, you are not a Rocket fan.
The allowing of touching the ball on the cylinder will be ridiculous. . . will it be a block to take it off the cylynder? no more goaltending[esp not offensive goal tending] This would be crazy . . unless it is a swish then the defense can swipe it off Rocket River ------------------
I'm with ZRB...there is nothing wrong with the NBA, except wanting the Larry Bird distance back to the 3-ptr. Everything else stays. They thought moving the 3-ptr in was going to spur points that were dwindling, and all it did was made it worse by (1) causing more long distance shots, and (2) shrinking the illegal defense zones to allow more collapsing. Moving the 3ptr in is what caused more ISOs, in my strong opinion. The thing about zones: I think many know I respect Bob*'s favorite type of basketball; I really like player motion (although ball movement is overrated imo and something different than player motion); maybe zones force a revolution; but I think there is a higher liklihood that we would cause a dynasty of 1 or 2 teams to occur, the ones that can anchor the middle with dominating defensive centers like Mourning (not to say Miami all of a sudden becomes a dynasty, just trying to make a point). Those teams would crush all offenses, and other teams would then have to copy them, or try to reign three's over it. Hell, do we really want to see Shawn Bradley as an all-star for getting 5 blocks a game. Eventually, scoring goes down even more. I'm not saying this will happen...how can you really predict it...but allowing zones is without a doubt a paradigmatic change of the game...you really must worry about its consequences!!! There is a tendency for society to try to fix things with rules. I prefer watching things evolve naturally. Right now, we are in a defensive era of basketball, dominated by too many teams using the 3s too much. Just move the 3ptr back to Larry Bird distance. Can anyone arguing for zones explain to us why a Larry Bird three is too far out, and needed to be moved in.
At first, when I heard about the proposals to go to zone, I was terrified. I absolutely don't want to lose the 'matchup' aspect of the game. And NBA defenders are the best on earth. I'm puzzled that the NBA wants to increase scoring- but suggests this? Furthermore, there's a big difference between player movement and ball movement. That's why college ball bugs the hell out of me. Swing it around the horn, someone tries to penetrate, can't, swing it around the horn, someone shoots an ill-advised three. All the big men rush their moves in the paint because they have to do it between three defenders. But after watching Duke-Arizona last night, I'm feeling more open to the idea. That was an awesome game. Intelligent play. Cuts to the basket. Sweet passes, blocks, and dunks. Constant back-and-forth. A dominant guard who can get inside or a great big man on the inside will still create seams and mismatches and opportunities for the rest of his team. Zone or no, Steve and Cat will blow by their man, and when the defense collapses, somebody will have to be open. If you add the 3 second defense rule to that, there might be a lot of open dunks. Allowing zone would force the game to be more intelligent. Let's face it, the iso is effective because it's simple, it's hard to screw up, there isn't much nuance or worrying about other players screwing up their part of some more complex offensive scheme. I think a zone would force a constant attack with an intelligent offense against a hard-to-crack defense. Instead of Steve/Cuttino/Mooch on the wing, dribble down the clock, and it will take the entire clock, because the good defensive teams double with only a few seconds left, forcing a last-second decision. Look, we're draining the clock anyway. Might as well spend the clock looking for a good shot. Besides, even in college ball, where any defenses are allowed, many teams stick with man-to-man. Take Huggins at Cincy- one of the great defensive teams and defensive coaches year in and year out. A major proponent of man-to-man. Scrapping illegal D could be disastrous. Could result in many 55 point games. But it might work wonderfully. Getting a high-percentage offense would rely on more than just having a fantastic one-on-one player; you would need an intelligent team. And how about that offensive rebounding rule? Can you imagine what Steve could do with that? And I think that it is something different from goaltending, is it not? Could someone clarify?
I think scoring will decrease The Offensive rebound rule will be kinda strange because unless you get a Clean swish . . . they can pull it out [what about going through the net?] Rocket River ------------------
This is radical, and I'll get flamed for it if anyone cares enough to bother, but I'm all in favor of zone defense, the longer three and, subsequently, lower scoring. Personally, I find "defensive struggles" much more interesting than two teams hitting everything they put up. Lower scoring would give actual value to every basket. If both teams are scoring in the hundreds every time out, as was the want in most of the eighties, there is no value to a made basket. You're just like, "oh, he hit a shot...so what? Hit ten of em' in a row, then I'll be impressed." Let's say the NBA successfully finds a way to raise the scoring in the NBA. What will happen? Everyone will be very pleased and entertained...for a couple of years. Then that won't be enough. Then it'll be, "how can we get teams to score 120 consistently? Maybe a 'no contact on defense rule?'" It'll never be enough. It's this inflationary attitude that's endangering the game, not the possibility of a zone defense. I think the zone would do exactly the opposite of what the NBA is hoping it will do, and that's great IMO. Give me a game that uses team strategy, where every basket means something, and I'll show you a happy basketball fan. ------------------ "There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another which states that this has already happened." Douglas Adams
the reference to last night's championship match is probably the most compelling 'pro-' argument for the zone... a talented point guard with superior court vision and court smarts can make a Stradivarius out of the half-court game. You iso-faithful types out there may cringe at the thought of ANY zone, but what is the likelyhood that a team will employ it full-time? the first one that does against the likes of a shooting team will find themselves down double-digits in the first 8 minutes of the game. I can see regular man-on coverage until crunch time, when the teams want to clamp down and not give up the demoralizing one-on-one pull-ups or jams, and may the best point guard/ best jump-shooter win. Who knows? you may end up with better basketball players as a result, with the Darius Mileses of the league learning what they should have had they opted for an education before a payday. You might also see Franchise <gulp> MAKING HIS TEAMMATES BETTER. are you listening, Mobes? ------------------ "We mark some days as fair, some as foul, because we do not see that the character of every day is identical."
Nolen, do you think Duke's offense could produce a shot in 24 seconds by complicated schemes. imo, if you add zone, you have to add time to the clock for the motion game to create a defensive mistake. I think it is more likely we will see Nolen Richardson ball "run down and shoot" before the zone sets than Bobby Knight's "wait-for-it...wait-for-it". If that happens, is that a good thing? There are many, many intelligent and athletic players in this game who can run any offense a coach demands. Player motion relies on confusing the zones with pass/move, whereas Nolen Richardson's offense flattens the zone and forces the defense to pick an evil. It somewhat annoys me to hear the media say stuff like NBA players are not intelligent enough to play complicated offenses. That really annoys me. I think the intelligent NBA coaches and stars and defenses realize Knight's Motion has less chance to develop a shot in 24 seconds than college, making it not as great an offense for the NBA. People assume the players don't know how to play Motion...is that a valid assumption....is it a fair assumption. Complicated offenses do not mean they are better in 24-seconds. Just ask Nolen Richardson. Are we to believe that NBA coaches are going to say, "Darn, now I don't get to run my ISOs anymore, I better draft some non-athletic shooters." I think they are going to concentrate much more on the defensive side, "Let's see how I can use zones to stop anything, I better draft faster, quicker defenders, and seriously look into that 7'8" Chinese player." These rules will make Shawn Bradley a star before they allow Steve Alford to be a star. Zones will demand more fast defenders, and Matt Bullard is not that. How can we assume rules changes will cause "more intelligent" offenses when athletic and fast match-up zones can stop them. This rules change gives the advantage to defense, and that is likely what the coaches will concentrate the most on. I enjoy seeing Temple's smart, disciplined, athletic and fast match-up zones going against more talented offensive players playing sophisticated offenses. But, do we really want to see an NBA full of Temple zones knocking 10-15 points off the league average. Is that what we want? btw: the defensive 3-sec rule is only if the defender is more than arm's length away from his man. So, how long are Shawn Bradley's arms?
Well, yeah. I do. But that's just me. ------------------ "There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another which states that this has already happened." Douglas Adams [This message has been edited by Gascon (edited April 03, 2001).]
I think we'll see MAN TO MAN with Mutombo in the middle in Philly. Mutombo will simply camp out under the basket. While on the other end the team runs a BOX and ONE on Iverson I mean hell . . .at this point I may be willing to commit 2 people to iverson and see what the other 4 people could do 2 people's job is to make sure Iverson NEVER TOUCHES THE BALL. we will see more 3 ptrs esp against certain teams [Against shaq, duncan, mutombo etc. . .but also BY the LAKERS SPURS AND PHILLY because teams will 'flatten' down on those guys] *-maybe not Mutombo Rocket River bomb squads ------------------
Wrong!!! An outside shooting threat becomes even more valuable. Forcing the zone to come out to play him, thus opening up the inside game. ------------------ "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."- (Aldous Huxley)
Ugh, all of this zone defense talk makes me want to puke. The NBA wants to kill the ISO and raise scoring? I find the ISO the same as posting up a big man down low, its still 1-on-1. As for the 3 second def rule, its just gonna make the game harder for refs.. now they don't have to call illegal defenses, but they have watch for offensive and defensive 3 seconds. What happens if two opposing players enter the lane at the same time? This is so dumb, I don't know what they are thinking. I will lose a lot of respect for the NBA if they bring in the zone. ------------------ BILL KENNEDY SUCKS!
Bob* you are reading too much media then, because Steve Alford still can't play NBA defense, zone or not. He'll still get ISO'd and not be able to prevent one of the major keys to beating a zone, penetrate the seams. My whole point is people thinking zones will allow slow players to start in the NBA because defenses will get easier, need to consider that NBA coaches usually exploit the rules to what has the advantage. With zones, the defense clearly has the advantage in stopping the low post like never before. People who think it will become a game of shooting over and passing around a zone, need to consider first that the fast, athletic zones will stop the inside game better than slow, sluggish ones IN ALL SCENARIOS. Quite frankly, I don't think Pat Riley or Larry Brown will give a damn about how many shooters you have, because your low post scoring is going down drastically against them. Riley will get speed out to hound your perimeter *and* double the lane; that is pretty for certain in my mind. So your largest net gain will be to suffocate the low post with defense, not use slow Alfords in the league to improve your ability to shoot over it at the expense of your ability to defend them. Zone will allow fast and athletic match-up zones to stop penetration, overplay passing lanes, and hound shooters. Everyone's defense is improving and making it very hard for you to get off a clean shot. Everyone's defense is improving except BobFinn's* defense, because Bob thinks Steve Alford isn't a defensive liability anymore now that he has a zone around him to pick up his jock-strap. Shawn Bradley's value is soaring compared to the Steve Alfords, no doubt about that in my opinion.
The rule is there will be no count on the defensive player as long as he is arm's lenght away from a man. Bradley has 4' arms or something? But, Dream going way weak-side to take Shawn Bradley out of the lane accomplishes what if, Shawn can now just be instructed to move over to the strong-side and sit there.
HP- I haven't watched any temple so I couldn't answer that question. Seems that more time on the shot clock is important to you. If the league puts 30 seconds on there, would you be happy with it? I haven't watched a lot of zone. Just the championship games this year, and a lot of the Bearcats back when I was at Cincy. As I said before, a lot of the college ball I watched annoyed the hell out of me. But the championship game... that was pretty sweet. The argument for easier defense goes two ways- yes, you could get a bunch of defensive studs to make scoring nigh-impossible. But how many pure defensive studs can put the ball in the hole? See: Cato, Rhodes, Bo Outlaw. Yes, there are awesome defenders who can also score. They are generally referred to as marquee players. On the other hand, a coach could say- well, defense will be easier, Bull has a nice long reach and could cover a good area at the right elbow without having to follow his man through picks, and he can be my long distance threat at the other end. I think your prediction of coaches drafting for defense basically reflects what you would do in that situation. And that's cool. But NCAA has been playing this way for a long time, and there are plenty of teams like Princeton and Indiana who went a looong way with slow no-defense white boys. Just as sure as one coach might say, 'hey, zone D, defense is the most important, I'm going to put out my defensive studs on the floor.' I think another could say 'zone D, now offense is far more difficult and crucial, I'm going to put my sweet shooters on the floor.' Or, it might actually put a higher demand on players that can do both. Imagine that. Could I deal with the league scoring average going down 10-15 points? If it results in a lot of premature bad shots, no. If it produces a game of constant energy, pressing, rebounding like every possession counts, spending the entire clock trying to crack a difficult defense, hell yes.
