Zone defense, love it or hate it?

Your thread title asks "Do you Love or Hate Zone defenses?" But the question above the poll asks a different question,"Are zone defenses a problem?"

Zone defenses are a problem for teams that can't shoot. Teams like the Mavericks and Celtics have very good shooters and have very little problems with a zone defense. Teams like the Lakers and Jazz struggle.

Shooting a mid-range jumpshot is a lost art in the NBA. If a player doesn't get a good look at a 3-pointer he will try to take it to the hole for a fancy ESPN highlight layup or dunk. Mid-range jumpshots do not make the ESPN highlights. Suddenly, almost overnight, bad defensive teams have become good ones and as you have stated, bad defensive players are not such a liability anymore.

NBA players should have to play both sides of the ball, offense and defense, they certainly make enough money.

 

i hate zone defense,in europa they have always alowed it.and i don't like it.if you want high scoring game than do not introduce zone defense,i think it is stupid idea. i hate playing against zonedefenses(i'm a center\PF).also a denfesive stopper is not that importend any more,even dallas can play some defens now because they play zone

 

Thank you...

Just take a look at some of the scores from the 60's and 70's. Those teams could put up 100 by the end of the third, without a three point line. Holding a team to 100 points meant you were a GOOD defensive team. Even in the 80's, when scoring was still high, only the great shooters like Byron Scott, Reggie Miller, and Larry Bird took the majority of three pointers.

Zones aren't the problem. Beating a zone is simple with crisp passing and players moving without the ball. The problem is and always has been the three point line.

The problem with it is that players away from the ball tend to use it as a reference point. They stand outside of the three point line, and if they can't get a shot off from there, THEN they start to work the ball inside. If there weren't a three point line on the floor, do you think players would be standing around 23 feet away from the basket? Heck no, they would move closer and try to get a better shot. Calvin Murphy always preaches the "inside out" game, when the players generally do the exact opposite.

BTW, how would you make isolations illegal? Seems kind of hard to do...

 

I don't think the zone is a problem. I am glad they got rid of the illegal defense rule. Now teams can actually have some defensive strategies on their chalk boards. It gives the game a lot more variables to watch. Scoring is down because offenses are adjusting to the zone. Once they figure out how to effectively beat it, the tide will change. And then, the defensive strategists will work up something else to counter them. Don't you think it's more fun that way then just watching man on man all the time?

The 3-point line is a problem only when you don't have the zone. The zone takes away some driving opportunities but creates more mid-range jumper spaces. The 3-point line is a necessity with the shot-clock. Without the trey, defenses will simply tighten up the zone and dare you to shoot from downtown. The offense won't have enough time to work around the tightened zone. The 3-point line is there to force the defense to come out to defend the long shots.

 

I'm in favor of the Zone Defense.

I agree with the statement that scoring is down because offenses are adjusting to the zone. In time NBA players will re-discover the art of the Mid-Range jumper. Once that happens scoring will be up, and all will be well with the NBA once again.

 

Here is a wild idea. Adopt the college three point line. Move the NBA three point line even further away from the basket to make it a four point line. Dunking the ball is worth three points.

Can this set of rules make the players running like crazy? It could be hard on the refrees.

 

I don't know if I'm the only one but I miss the isolation plays, I used to love watch Mobley and Francis repeatedly beat their man off the dribble. Now I hate seeing them try to do it against a zone defense, I personally think other teams were all for the zone because they didn't have as talented players as us. Although I'd love to watch B Davis isolate, Starbury, Kobe, Tmac, Pierce, just to name a few.

 

Yes...







You are the only one

 

I love the zones. When players learn to pass, shoot, and move without the ball again then we can get rid of it. The game was screwed up with all the stupid iso crap and it needed a fix.

 

I dont mind the zone defenses, the problem is the lack of movement and quick passes for one, but the real prob is the shot clock. You need time to break a zone down, the ball should go across the perimeter 2 times AT LEAST. Think about it, you get the rebound and bring the ball up begin to set up you offense, say this takes you 10 seconds. The shot clock is now down to 14 seconds. sure it keeps the pace of the game going but it does not translate into good shots. Look at the heaves our guys shoot up some. . . . most of the time. A offense needs time to set up and make the D work, as it is right now, The D has less work to do because of the shot clock.

Then again if people would push the ball up as soon as a shot was made, or rebound secured, to beat the zone. . . .that might solve a lot of problems. But its the coaches who are still beating their heads against a wall, waiting for their team to get down the floor, calling out a play then getting made because of a poor shot.

make the shot clock 35 seconds like college, or no shot clock like high school. There are high school teams that score 70 to 80 points a game, and thats in 32 minutes. the third quarter of an NBA game would not be over in that amount of time. sad

 

as long as the rox are winning im happy wiht them zones

 

ZONES are UNROOL Dak

they only work if you have a brainless coach and brainless players, they have so many more faults in them than a man defense.

right now they are winning cause coaches and players have little experience in combatting them, with a little patience the offense will improve and the defense will be forced to change and improve.

It will be good for the game, sure shooters help but team offense will be the big winner and i thought you hated Isos Dak???

PS think i might start a poll - Has DaDakota changed his whole basketball philosophy since Brandon was born or have Aliens taken over his body or is the Mrs posting as DaDakota while breastfeeding???

 

For a perfect example of what you just said watch a Mavs game. That is exactly the way they play. It's also the way Seattle almost beat Dallas earlier this year.

 

Me too

Overall though, I don't have anything against a Zone. They requires players to have good skill level and tactical knowledge. Also, it puts emphasis on the value of team work. Besides, the average point scored was constantly declining during the 90s.
The real problem is that the modern day players do not know how to play team ball! They also have very limited technical level never mind tactical, as they skip College to for cash. In addition, most play the game in the street, whether it is in Asia or America or Europe, which tends to immitate isolation plays shown in TV highlights rather than proper team basketball.
I think NBA introduced the zone too early without addressing these problems.

 

Zone sux. Death to zone, and zoners. Eat elbow bone, zones! Pick up your &^%ing teeth, they're in my way.