I think the biggest concern out of the Battier trade is how T-Mac and Battier can play together if Battier does not play Power Forward. We don't want T-Mac chasing around shooting guards out of concern for his back, we all feel Battier does not have the speed to do this either. What both players do have, however is size and length. A zone defense would limit both players need to chase quicker shooting guards while wreaking havoc with their length. Our defense is geared to stop penetrating and give up the 3pt shot anyway, which a zone does, but it stops our guys from running relentlessly. If Battier does play PF, we could insert Snyder at the SG spot which would give us even more athleticism from 2 to 4. This would also prevent Yao from having to show on screens and chase point guards. It would also chew up the oppositions shot clock through extra passing and teams like Detroit would struggle as Rip's offense is dependant on a man-to-man defense. Any thoughts?
I'd be careful not to expose Yao to early fouls with it. It could be useful for mixing it up and forcing turnovers in the second half.
I absolutely hate the way Yao has to run out to the perimiter on D. I would love for him to be around the basket the whole game. I don't know if zone D would allleviate that some, but I say whatever it takes to keep Yao in the paint exclusively lets do it.
I always wanted to see JVG try a little zone against teams that KILL us from the 3 point line (suns mavs and kings before peja trade). It would be interesting to see how a 3-2 zone would fair against these teams (3 guarding the perimeter and then 2 to guard the post) The basic idea of a zone is just to guard the small designated area around you so I think if we used it, it would alleviate yao of cheap fouls on the perimeter because he would be defending only the paint area. However, I think JVG is too stubborn to try it as he preaches man to man defense heavily as his "forte" IIRC
Other way around though... Zones are weak against the three point line because you restrict yourself to a certain area with the zone. Teams can just step out and pop 3's all day long. Zones are great at stopping penetration and post up play by clogging up the middle and having players support each other in case someone tries to break through. And considering how slow our backcourt used to be, a little zone would've been damn helpful in previous years.
The funny thing about JVG refusing to use the zone is that even his mentor Pat Riley resorted to using it in the finals. Avery used it a lot as well. In the clinching game, both teams tried using it at the same time.
Swift would have been a nice little component to a zone attack... And an underated negative to zone is that the defense is out of position on the rebound.
I actually like our team defense concept. We play a man defense with lots of switching. If you get beat, there's a switch and someone else picks up your slack. That's why I think it's VERY important to have guards with size on the team. Obviously, though, the downside of this concept is that it puts extra pressure on the interior. Which is one reason why Yao sometimes finds himself in foul trouble early ... and throughout the game.
i think the current defensive scheme is hard to argue with. especially since the rockets have been a top tier defensive team over the last few years...even with all the injuries last year the team was still comptetive on the defensive side if it aint broke...
Switch it up depending on what we face. For a team like Cleveland, we could play primary zone and force them to make long jumpers since they have issues with those. A team like Phoenix we could man up and rotate on screens with the correct line-up in place(one of the few cases Battier plays PF). Of course, we could change-up over the course of the game to keep teams confused.
the problem with JVG's pressure/trapping defensive scheme... especially last year... was you had too many slow/old/ or undersized guys trying to play it... a large percentage of the time it seems like our guys were chasing the ball...because we were double teaming (many times a guy we didnt need too) and in the end we gave some guy a good look at the basket by being a step behind...or leaving the guy wide open... I figure why not save ourselves the energy and the trouble....and play zone... sure in a zone were giving up a good look at the basket type shot... but with JVG's defensive scheme were doing that already... just working harder to do so....
I vote no. I think if the players know their assignments and know their rotations and anticipate well, it's an outstanding defensive scheme. We saw that a couple years ago (man has he been here that long?). Anticipation is the key (IMHO). It's almost like playing with 6 people on defense if done correctly, and is truly a beautiful thing to watch.
But is it possible that it's having an adverse effect on our offense? We rarely get transition baskets, since we don't force a lot of turnovers and guys don't leak out when we get the defensive board.
But is it possible that it's having an adverse effect on our offense? We rarely get transition baskets, since we don't force a lot of turnovers and guys don't leak out when we get the defensive board. well 2 things could be argued. 1) lack of turnovers could be partly due to lack of size, length and athleticism at the guard spot. 2)It is actually harder to get rebounds in a zone b/c it its a little tougher to pick up a man and put a body on him.
You're the second one to post this, it's only partially true. Teams that play zone normally don't rebound as well. But good rebounders still rebound well. A zone does two things that affect rebounding. 1. Since a player is not assigned another player to defend, he usually doesn't box out an individual player. This often hurts the rebounding of post players. It doesn't affect the good rebounders because they box out the most likely opponent to have a shot at the ball. It has to do with ability to read the shot and predict rebound direction. 2. Since the perimeter players are in assigned location, it puts them in better position to cover the floor for long rebounds. In Van Gundy's defensive scheme, if a shot is made out of a double team or P&R defense, two players will be in the same general area on the perimeter. It will leave a large section of the court uncovered for a long rebound. This is why despite having four perimeter players and often running a collapsing zone, Dallas was still a good rebounding team. Zone defense definitely hurts average or worse rebounders in the post. It does not affect good rebounders much at all. It can help average or better rebounding guards.
If you watched the playoffs, the most effective teams such as the Mavericks employed the zone to end a string of baskets by their opponent. This could also work very well with the Rockets. Van Grumpy already has a solid defensive gameplan set up, but when we start giving up a few buckets in a row, a switch to a numbing zone is perfect. Or if all else fails, just put in R.Bowen, he's the answer to all our defensive troubles.
Per Two Sandwiches: " I absolutely hate the way Yao has to run out to the perimiter on D. I would love for him to be around the basket the whole game. I don't know if zone D would allleviate that some, but I say whatever it takes to keep Yao in the paint exclusively lets do it." Agreed - this wastes Yao's energy. Waste of important energy to our player most difficult for other teams to match up with.
