For further reading see here http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/Forum2/HTML/001610.html Zones are not as all conquering as you all think, they can be beat. Plus after watching the Lakers v Knicks the other day teams already play zones, well at least the knicks were big time, so what's the difference. ------------------ "Repression never did me any harm (I finally ceased to include "stop masturbating" as one of my guilt ridden New Year's resolutions, but that's a different topic)." Achebe - programmer by day, Mrs Palmers Husband by night
Sorry, just got back from work. I was on my lunch break earlier. I thought I did answer that question, heypee. I wouldn't mind seeing Temple zones with the accompanying Temple offenses in the NBA at all. That's just more my style. I hate the ISO...always have. ------------------ "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
Just like when you raise the speed limit, it makes the rules that much more bendable. ------------------ "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
HeyPee, You act like the zone defense will be the end of basketball as we know it. Teams are already playing it, so there won't be that big of a difference. I take it you don't have much experience playing for or against zone defenses? ------------------ "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."- (Aldous Huxley)
HP, why do teams play zones??? cause they can't guard players 1 on 1 or have some sort of defensive deficiency, or maybe try to hide a Bullard like defenders or maybe the main scorer is in fould trouble So what do you do when you play against Zone??? Make them guard you 1 on 1, use technqiue like Overloading, screens, cuts, good ball movement but mostly playing inside out ( zones cannot stop a dominant big man and certainly can't rebound very well) and lots of penetration, you don't beat zones by shooting them down, you beat them by finding the gaps and stretching the zone out of shape. All of which is not Rocket science (no pun intended) ------------------ "Repression never did me any harm (I finally ceased to include "stop masturbating" as one of my guilt ridden New Year's resolutions, but that's a different topic)." Achebe - programmer by day, Mrs Palmers Husband by night
true Smeggums. how did Duke rebuild their late lead last night? By Battier and others back door cutting and basically waving to Williams and Duhon. ------------------ (===)
It doesn't have to do w/ the game play. The game is boring b/c it takes too long and there are 20 games too many. But try to convince the owners to shave off 10 home games. Sure. Try to have an owner shoot down the bogus tv breaks. Sure. Try to make the 48 minute game last at max: 2 hours. Sure. Any rule changes are bogus patches on a bigger problem. Want better revenue? Make the games count for something. Build in a 5 year cycle to decrease the # of games (so contracts could also evolve). ------------------ (===)
I can agree that defensive struggles are great to watch. I don't need scoring. That is why I say there is nothing wrong with the NBA except for too many 3 point shooters (move the 3 back). Gascon, I just want to know what kind of offenses people expect out of these rules. In your comments, I only read that you think defenses dominating the game puts a higher premium on each basket, so the offenses will get fancier to facilitate that. But, if coaches recruit faster and quicker defenders to surround Mourning, Mutombo and Bradley, how does that increase the quality of offenses. My feeling is swings the scales in defenses favor, and a defensive dynasty will occur around a premier center. Everyone will have to follow suit, and create ever better and more athletic defenses. The combination of the rules and the need to draft defenders will not produce the offenses the rules are trying to produce.
I never said I thought the rules would help the offense in any way. I only stated that I enjoy defensive battles more than the alternative. If the NBA is trying to raise scoring by incorporating the zone, then I chuckle and say, "go ahead. Give it your best shot." ------------------ "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
yes yes yes I agree. Reduce the schedule to 64-66 games. 82 is just a little too much. Heck, just knock off 12. i don't know what this does to the schedule... ------------------
Gascon, I like Temple, too. Answer the extended question then: Do you want to see a lot of Temple zones in the NBA with the accompanying Temple offenses?
First off (Bob Finn* who simply ignores my previous points that Steve Alford can't play in the NBA so he wants to move on to others)....the NBA is NOT playing zone like zone is meant to be played. That is clear and evident and the entire reason for the rules change. Your comment above is What?...what the hell is that comment? other than meant to deflect my previous comments about Steve Alford cannot play defense. The NBA is not playing Zone like it is meant to be played. How can you make that comment above....what is its purpose? Give me clue. This is purely obnoxious, and classic "I'll just condenscend to win the argument". Uh. Bob* when exactly did our exchange become an argument? I'm like talking to 5 people in this thread, and you throw this crap at me....for what purpose? Clearly for some alterior motive. Sounds like you are the one in denial about Steve Alford's ability to bring Bobby Knight offense to a 24-second clock when hounded by San Antonio, Miami and Philedelphia playing an athletic match-up zone. Yet, you don't want to discuss it, rather turn it into some argumentative thread about your basketball values or something. can we discuss basketball here... oh...and Steve Alford's defense SUCKS!!!
Smeggy, you are right. There are many ways to beat a slow, sluggish zone. But, try scoring 60 points against Temple though, and call me later. The point is: all rules changes in sports make coaching staffs sit down and think about how to exploit them. That has been proven time and time again, across all sports. There is no promise the coaches will adjust the way you want them to. I promise you; they will not sit there and think about how to improve their offense by drafting Steve Alford. They will quickly realize that the zone rule is forcing a defensive league upon them, so they will strive to make the best defense EVER in the NBA. It is very clear to me. Low post rules in basketball...at all levels. No one can deny that. Zone is designed to stop the low post. Man on Man is to stop shooters. Temple-style match-up zone (and Daly's rotation defense) is to frenetically stop everything, but requires great speed and athleticism. The NBA with zone will not seek more "intelligent" offensive players (whatever that means) like the media seems to think. The NBA will need even more speed and athleticism on the court to surround a dominating center. Anyone who wants to suggest how Motion will all of a sudden rule in the NBA, needs to explain how motion will make Duncan and Robinson make a mistake in 24 seconds. Those guys are much more talented and smart to allow some newfound drafting paradigm towards "intelligent" players to create a crease without the sheer athleticism of Cuttino Mobley. My big b**** in all this is the claim that NBA defenses (with a zone) are too stupid and will allow a new NBA Drafting movement towards drafting slow Bobby Knight precision to penetrate the low post. NBA defenses rock...that is the whole reason we are facing ISOs now. Zones will not create a movement to slow, smart motion guys...(whatever that means). It will create a movement to better defenses...and Pat Riley, Popovich, and Larry Brown will quickly make it clear that they could care less if you can shoot over them, because your low post is not scoring more than theirs...due to their superior defense. Bet me!
Personally I'm tired of the iso's and one on one wrestling matches under the basket. I want to see crisp ball movement. I want to see everyone on a team be able to hit a basic jump shot. I want to see rent-a-jocks, who have no basketball skills whatsoever, be a thing of the past. I want NBA players to spend more time shooting and playing basketball than lifting weights. We need more players and less "athletes". I want to see a fast break every once in a while instead of people walking down the court to get in their proper place for "spacing". The finesse game is almost extinct in the NBA and that needs to change. Sacramento is without a doubt a throw back team with all their passing, cutting, and movement. If only every team in the league were as fun to watch. ------------------ "You have to think optimistic. I think it's never over till it's over." - Clyde Drexler after losing at home to go down 3-1 to the Suns in '95
HeyP, Temple has a 45 second shot clock to play with AND against. They also play 40 minutes a night. In the NBA the shot clock would be 24 seconds and the games last 48 minutes per night. That's a LOT more overall possessions. In Australia zone defense is allowed. We also play 4 quarters of basketball (which is rare outside of the US), and this season a 24 second shot clock has been implemented. Now according to all the experts here that should mean that teams only score 60 a night and the game is slow and boring.. ...but isn't the shot clock 24 seconds? Don't be fooled by thinking that the college game is any true reflection of how zone defense operates in a PROFESSIONAL league with a 24 second clock. Teams merely have to set their offense more quickly and get a good shot earlier on in the offense. Having watched plenty of Australian basketball I can assure you that zone defense does not detract from the quality of scoring - if anything it provides more opportunities for back door allies and put back slams. In fact the zone is so ineffective that a lot of teams just matchup man on man so that they can survive better defensively. Admittidly there are less dunks in the aussie league, but that is due to the far lower overall level of athleticism - there are enough people that get open for leyups underneath who could've cocked the ball back and thundered home the slam. Having watched a league operating under the same time constraint as the NBA and seeing how they handle the "legal zone" I'm not against it. I'd prefer to watch the big men have to be able to pass out and then receive it back and make their move more quickly, or for the penetration and dishing of guards to become more instinctive rather than carefully setup and choreographed - let the players play! ------------------
As a writer in houston stated I think the fact that Coaches Call EVERY PLAY is the problem Let Players play is right Rocket River ------------------
DrNuegenbaur, Temple is 18-21 yr olds too. The NBA players have more endurance, no bout a doubt it. You say college is not a reflection on how zones will be played in the NBA, true. But then you say that Australia is a reflection on how zones will be played...Huh? You apply that logic, just because they have the same time clock?? Does Australia have Mourning, Shaq, Duncan, Robinson, Mutombo, Ratliff, Bradley in your league? If you do, damn Rudy should be down there recruiting then. No offense, but you guys can't play smothering zone like the NBA, until you have smothering centers like the NBA. Do you think San Antonio and Miami have good defenses now? What do you think is going to happen when you can't pull Mourning, Mason, and Grant...and Robinson and Duncan out of the lane, because they have 3 fast perimeter guys to run down your shooters. Nolen, Offering the logic game that says "going for good defenses, means you are foresaking your offense, so the Princeton's can beat you" is somewhat playing a Dreamcast game whereby you get to set levels to your offense vs defense but you only have some many power ratings to dish out. Besides, for every Princeton I could name a run-n-gun team like Loyola Marymount with Paul Westhead coaching that was inversely freakish to Princeton. I mentioned Temple as the best example of defense played in the NBA. Please don't mention Matt Maloney's Penn or Princeton's suck down the clock unless you mention David Robinson's Navy. Navy did that because David rocked from an athletic standpoint. I also mentioned Arkansas, Oklahoma, and UNLV as prime examples of fast, athletic defenses who were #1 teams in the nation going into the tourny. Those three won on the athleticism expected in the NBA. I don't see how we can talk about how college slow precision is all of a sudden going to work, unless you have Stockton with the best PF of all time. I only press this conversation to debunk the notion that rules changes will allow slow ball to win in the NBA. I am tired of the media insulting NBA players by saying they are not intelligent or don't have fundamentals, that's why the game sucks. Not only is it insulting to the players, but to the GMs who drafted them in a new era of defense. If I could refocus this discussion, I'd like to leave the Australian and college dreamcasting aside and talk about the teams on the court right now. Can anyone deny that the best defensive team in the NBA over the past 11 yrs has won the title? Those were all based on incredibly smart defensive players playing extremely athletically. Rodman, Pippen, Jordan, Dream, Maxwell, Horry, Drexler, Duncan, Robinson, Elliott, Kobe, Shaq. Do we not believe that GMs all over started recruiting for defense to match this success. The NBA right now is a defensive oriented league, playing the best defense in the history of the game, imo. And yes, it is playing a match-up zone quite often; the rotation is a zone pretty much. But it is not allowed to play a zone under the basket. That is what the rules will allow. Why do we need to make that change? imo, the defenses will get better and more athletic, because one of these teams with a premier center will show us what the NBA can do with a center who can roam free, and the rest of the league will have to follow suit. So, the question seems to be, will the premium on defense increase, or will the premium on offense increase to attack those better defenses? Why would a league dominated by defensive-oriented titles change their recruiting strategies by implementing zones? They might stop running high ISOs, but at what expense....
I think several thing small things the league is over looking 1. Offensive Rebound - will it go down? if it does so will second chance points 2. Turn overs will increase I still don't see the 3 second rule and the Zone co-existing. Personally I can still see the ISOs working If 4 guys on one side with the 5 on the other. The double team doesn't come but sort of stands in what is now NO MAN's land . . the defense will have a choice to make 1. Just cut off the base line and force him to the man that is in NML . . . 2. play up and try to force him to the baseline funneled to another defender. If the try 1. I think increasing the angle of the ISO would force the man in NML to over commit. a good cutter can come through receive the pass [look for the second pass to a second cutter from the weak side coming baseline.] 2. this is strange to me cause you have 1 defender in NML 1 defender guarding a man and 1 man in the post awaiting the funnel that is 3 men guarding 1 offensive player The allows a WHOLE lot of options for the offense some nice BACK Picks opens up wide open 3s on the skip pass. or even a alley oop Rocket River it will be interesting ------------------
Does anybody have a link to the Chronicle interview with Rudy just saying no to zone? I'd like to read it. HP- I'll respond later. Good post.
I can't really believe what the coaches are saying. Don Nelson drafted the '81 rules changes for clarifying illegal zones, now he wants to renege on that, likely because he has plans for Bradley in a zone. It is like listening to politicians argue over something. here's a tidbit from history: I wonder why they outlawed it so quickly? My bet is that one or two teams were dominating everyone, or the league couldn't score...even back then with slow white ball...lol!
