come on guys, lets stop being so negative about this zone defense. imo i think it will benefit the rockets more than you think. for one, in order to beat a zone defense you have to have good outside shooting and i believe the rockets will have the personnell to shootover zones. reason being is because they have good spot up shooters, bullard, mobley, langhi, francis, and collier. for two, the zone forces you to utilize the fast break more so you won't have to face the zone. if you rebound a miss, i'm sure you want to outlet the fast break more before the opposing team sets up the zone and i think the rockets have the horses to run. now for defensive purposes, just think, hakeem and cato get to sit in the middle of the zone swat at everything at the basket instead following the opposing centers away from the basket. think of the energy that hakeem can now save and devote to defense. also francis and mobley can gamble more around the perimeter for steals because hakeem and (webber) will have their backs. now look at the teams in the western conference who definitely be affected by the zone, lakers, portland, utah , phoenix, and seattle. reason being is because they don't have good perimeter shooters. utah, phoenix, and seattle will suffer more out of this group because they don't have that safety net in the middle on defense. so before we jump to conclusions, lets just look at the advantages before we start assessing this. keep in mind that my opinions are solely based on the idea of webber being a rocket. ------------------
The zone will also hurt teams w/big men such as Duncan and Wallace. In college, it's hard for a big man to put up big numbers because of the collapsing defense. We won't be the only ones being hurt.W/Steve's quickness, he have no problems getting into the zone and hitting the 15 footer. ------------------
More reading on zone speculation: http://espn.go.com/nba/columns/may/1171990.html Thursday, April 12, 2001 Shooters rejoice, Shaq, Kobe and Vince, beware -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Peter May Special to ESPN.com Somewhere, we presume San Antonio, Steve Kerr is smiling. Dell Curry is thinking about another three years and he'll even do it for Canadian dollars. Manute Bol checked in from Africa to announce he's coming back at the age (we think) of 39. And the entire coaching staff of the three-point happy Boston Celtics has scratched off the 'new plays for 2000-2001' entry from its list of things to do in the off-season. The NBA Board of Governors, bowing to pressure to fix what many feel is an unseemly, increasingly unwatchable product, has acted. It has rearranged the deck chairs on the Titanic. It has put a band-aid on a mortal wound. Let me see if I have this straight. In order to increase fluidity and scoring, the NBA is actually now going to allow the already offensive-phobic coaches to have infinitely more, not less, choices on defense? That's like trying to increase scoring in football by allowing 14 defensive players on the field. There's nothing wrong with the game that two changes wouldn't cure: stop allowing coaches to squeeze the life out of the shot clock and stop allowing callow, clueless kids to come into a league they think is all about dunking, chest-bumping, entourages and hi-tech cell phones. As Indiana coach Isiah Thomas rightly noted last week, "I don't think the game needs to be tweaked. I think the players need to be tweaked." It's interesting how the NBA went about instituting what easily will be the most dramatic facelift to the game since the 24-second clock was instituted. Instead of going through the usual channels (the competition committee) Commissioner David Stern did an end run and called upon old chum Jerry Colangelo to form a committee. Colangelo then deliberately skirted the 29 teams and brought in individuals with lengthy resumes, almost all of whom are either retired or unemployed. OK, he had two players, but the work was really done by the likes of Wayne Embry, Jerry West, Dick Motta and Dr. Jack Ramsay. "That way, there are no agendas," Colangelo said. No one asked the general managers. No one went to the coaches and said, 'if you guys don't start fast-breaking, we're going to require that you sit in the stands during the games.' No one said, 'this is all frosting. Have you happened to notice that hardly anyone comes into the league these days with any idea how to play basketball? Have you happened to notice this rookie class?' Trying to find someone other than Shawn Bradley or the aforementioned three-point specialists who think allowing a zone defense is a good thing is an exercise in futility. The estimable Stan Kasten, president of all things athletic in Atlanta, was planning to go along with the "recommendations" yesterday despite very serious misgivings. "I have plenty of reservations that it will improve the flow of the game and improve scoring because typically the way to break a zone is with long-range shooting," Kasten said last week. "One thing we've learned, we don't need more perimeter shooting." Do you think for a moment that Michael Jordan's tongue will still wag when he envisions being swarmed by three long-armed defenders and no one to pass to but Tyrone Nesby? (Then again, do you think his tongue would wag even if he had Nesby open alone under the basket?) Jordan already has come out against the zone defense, as has most every coach, general manager and player. "It eliminates the marquee players," Jordan said recently when he wasn't denying rumors of a comeback. "If you play Vince Carter and Kobe (Bryant), Shaquille (O'Neal) you're going to zone them. One thing they want to eliminate is the isolation play. Isolation, in the past, always has been the flagship of where creativity has come from." Or this from Rudy Tomjanovich, the coach of the 2000 Olympic Team: "Zones neutralize great athletic ability," he said. "I don't think it would be good for the league as far as entertainment. People want to see the guys who can soar to the basket." We know what the counter argument is and there is some merit to it. Yes, the illegal defense rules are close to incomprehensible and seemingly change from referee to referee. Yes, there have been more illegal defense violations this season (according to Embry) than there have ever been, which tells you coaches are playing a zone anyway. But there's a zone and there's a Z-O-N-E. It's one thing to have someone too far away from his man in the paint. It's something quite different to institute a system in which Shaquille O'Neal will feel like a clothes tree. "Why would he want to play if three guys can surround him? It won't be any fun for him," suggested Jason Kidd. If the Colangelo Committee wanted to create fluidity, it should have eliminated the three-point shot as well. Then teams would be forced to move the ball around, penetrate, screen and all those other, old-fashioned things out of 'Hoosiers.' Instead, what we're now going to see is pretty much what we've been seeing now -- dumping it in, swarming the ball, moving it around, and three-point shooting. Antoine Walker may never take another free throw again. OK, it may not be the end of Western Civilization as we know it. If the NBA starts to morph into the college game, that won't necessarily mean a less exciting product. There are exciting college games every night, just ask Dick Vitale. Just get ready for a lot of 70-65 games. Hey, maybe Mike Fratello will even get another coaching gig. But it's hard to envision how scoring will increase with lower percentage shots getting hoisted from the suburbs and stars getting covered in human tarps. You want to change the game, then deal with what's really wrong with the game -- the coaches, the missing fundamentals and a college-ravaging rookie wage scale which all but mandates that anyone who can hop or leap get onto the fast track and into the NBA. That would take more than an ad hoc committee. That would take some courage and foresight. That would address what should be addressed. Yesterday, the owners instead opted for the old misdirection play. Good luck to them. They pay the bills.
And some more from the Dr. http://espn.go.com/nba/s/2001/0412/1171902.html Changes will result in better team game -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Dr. Jack Ramsay Special to ESPN.com Editor's Note: ESPN NBA analyst and Hall of Fame coach Dr. Jack Ramsay was on an 11-member committee that met March 20-21 in Phoenix and endorsed ways to improve the game, including the use of zone defenses. Also on the committee, headed by Phoenix Suns owner Jerry Colangelo, were Theo Ratliff, Jerry West, Rod Thorn, Wayne Embry, Bob Lanier, Stu Jackson, Russ Granik and supervisor of officials Ed Rush. The committee unanimously recommended the use of zone defenses because it wanted to eliminate the stationary aspects of the game -- the isolations where one player has the ball against a defender while the other four players stand on the other side of the floor and point out the opponent's illegal defense to the officials. Basketball is supposed to be a five-man game; isolations make for an inactive and unattractive game that doesn't involve all five players. Allowing zone defenses and eliminating the illegal defense guidelines will take away the standstill part of the game. In addition, there has always been a cloud of uncertainty among players, coaches and officials about the rules regarding illegal defense. Plus, the fans have no clue. Most don't understand what is or isn't legal. The rule change removes any uncertainty about illegal defense. The term "illegal defense" is gone after this season. There are two other worthwhile changes: a defensive three-second count, in which a defender cannot be in the lane for three seconds without guarding somebody, which means an arm's length away from an offensive player; and an eight-second count in the backcourt, instead of 10. It will speed up the game and also invite trapping defenses. We should see a quicker pace, more strategy and more open-court opportunities. Everybody on the committee feels good about the changes, especially the removal of defensive restrictions. Isolations are not appealing to a player who is asked to stand outside the 3-point line on offense while one or two players play and try to score. The NBA was the only league to put a limit on the kind of defense a team could play. No other level of basketball requires a team to play its defenders in certain parts of the playing area. So then why did the NBA prohibit zone defenses in the first place? The league banned the zone defense in January of 1947, halfway through its first year of its existence -- and it's been banned ever since. The Pittsburgh Ironmen, who lasted only one season, played zone defense. I went to see the Ironmen play against the old Philadelphia Warriors, and their defense was so bad it was ludicrous. The league only banned the zone because it was bad, not because it was difficult for teams to play against. Through the years teams have managed to use double-teams and some zone principles. When Joe Mullaney coached the Lakers during the 1969-70 season, with Wilt Chamberlain, Jerry West and Elgin Baylor, he tried to play a combination zone defense, which he had used very successfully in college at Providence. But at the end of the year, I remember him telling me that the defense doesn't work in the NBA. With no restrictions on defense next season, people assume a lot of teams will play a zone. I don't think they will because a zone can't be effective in the NBA. Teams could play a combination zone, but I don't see it working. So eventually, we will still see one-on-one matchups. The NBA's nuts-and-bolts defense will remain man-to-man with weak-side help. Man-to-man defense will be just as intense as ever and will win. Teams that go to the playoffs won't be ones that play zone defense -- I guarantee it. Zone defense will, however, increase the number of strategies a coach can use. I think NBA coaches will try to put some kind of zone defense together to see how effective it can be, but it won't be a team's principal defense. And offensively, coaches must have an attack ready in case a team plays a zone defense. It will become part of a team's preparation. Most of the fears about zone defense are groundless. Detractors have said the offenses will become stationary and end with a lot of 3-point shots. If you are playing against a zone, you don't beat it from the outside. The best strategies against the zone are to either beat it down the floor, or to get the ball into the heart of the zone and beat it inside as well as on the perimeter, with a good balance between the two. The rule change will not help or hurt anybody. A team can put two defenders on Allen Iverson and play play three on the rest of the team. If that's the case, then Philadelphia will have to find a way to run Iverson off screens so he can get the ball and go to work. Larry Brown will figure out a way to make it happen, and it won't bother Iverson. If Shaquille O'Neal is triple-teamed, then there will be four players on two defenders. That's not good math, especially when one of the other players is Kobe Bryant. A lack of defensive restrictions will increase the demand for players to have better all-around skills, especially passing. Teams will need five players on the floor who can pass the ball and some good perimeter shooters. And defenders must be alert, quick and ready to make adjustments. Those are all good qualities. I was talking to Lakers coach Phil Jackson on Wednesday night, and he was proposing ways for teams to put two defenders on Shaq. I told him they could under the new rules. And if Shaq stands still, he will have a problem. But if Shaq moves, the ball moves and his teammates are aware of what's happening, Shaq will kill the defense. He is too good. I have high hopes for the changes to have a positive impact on the game. It's been a long time coming. The game should be very interesting and appealing to watch, to coach and to play, with no more mystique about illegal defense.
So what now? What happens to the Rockets' offense? Will we be looking at another 30 win season while the Rockets struggle to find offensive chemistry? What is going to happen to Rudy's system? Is this the end of Francis' stardom? ------------------ Hakeem "The Dream" Olajuwon is the greatest player in the history of basketball. If you disagree, you are not a Rocket fan.
I can't stand these so called basketball experts like Jack Ramsay and Hubie Brown. Ramsay is the same guy who wanted players to not be able to dribble or travel in the dunk contest. Hubie Brown is just a stubborn old school purist who probably believes Wally Szcerbiak is a star because he's so fundamentally sound.I bet Hubie would refuse announcing a Rockets game for TNT, well we did only have one, because of our "style" of play. Ramsay,Brown, and Wooden are 3 guys I can't stand as far as their view of the game goes. ------------------
I actually agree with what he said. I've always thought that our team played better when the ball was moved around rather than constantly using isolations. I expect to see Kelvin Cato play a lotter better ball, now that he can wait down low and clog up the lanes. It will be interesting to see which teams it will help the most and which teams are hurt from it. Personally, I don't think it will have that much of an effect on us. ------------------ "I would like to live forever, because we should not live forever, because if we were ever supposed to live forever, then we would live forever, but we cannot live forever, which is why I would not live forever." -Miss Alabama in the 1994 Miss Universe contest
ZRB, Rudy's offensive system is designed quite well to flattening defeinses: zone or not. I've made this argument before. It can play out very similar to Nolen Richardson's attack. Also, I strongly feel that the claim we are an isolation-only team now that we have a center again, is bunk! imo, fans are not watching enough Rockets or are Rudy bashers when the continue to categorize this offense as isolation. This team has plenty of ball movement, and creates slashing creases that even Bullard can drive through and has a nice mixture of low post and high post now that we have a center again. The key the last two years to calling us an isolation team is we didn't have a full team for pretty much 1 1/2 years. [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited April 12, 2001).]
Have you lost your mind? You think a zone defense will stop Francis? If you can't tell by now that Francis is much much more than an isolation player, you're insane. This should help Stevie imho... his improving penetration and ability to hit the midrange jumper should prove very good against the zone. Also, his 3 point shot will get a lot more looks. Furthermore, if we got Webber, or if we kept Mo and Dream, Steve will still get some iso looks when they draw attention. Like Dr. Jack said, the NBA players are too good to play a zone against all game long. It won't happen. There will still be plenty of isolation chances. This just throws in a new wrinkle, and actually may help the Rockets out on defense where they could improve in one on one situations. If a zone defense would force the Rockets to win just 30, then by the same logic the Jazz, Spurs, etc. would win about 20. Our offense has had a lot of ball movement this year since the first month or so, and we have just had this system in place for a year or so. Do you expect the Jazz to win 20 games next year? Teams who have run the same offense year after year will be the ones affected the most. Rudy's system is fine, Francis' star will grow brighter, and the Rockets will win at least 50 to answer your questions. ------------------ President of the Mo Taylor, Jason Collier, and draft Richard Jefferson fan club! Draftsource.net ClutchTown.com
The Cat, I can't agree that zone makes any offensive player better at scoring. Maybe you mean to say relative to other players, as in Francis will have an easier time with zone defenses than ... than ... who exactlY???? Will Moochie have a harder time than Francis? Will Cuttino have a harder time than Francis. Will Kobe, Rose, Stackhouse, Jamison, E. Jones, Garnett, Duncan...who? I cannot comprehend an argument that says zones make anything easier. Maybe less hard compared to the next guy, but not easier. How do zones create defensive weakness for Francis to exploit? Stockton? Kidd? Marbury? Payton? Adding zones is supposed to prevent defenses weaknesses, not expose them. Isn't what we really mean to say is that zones will clamp down on certain things very well and add several new defenses options, making some offensive skills standout But everything gets clamped down....everything becomes harder...that is my prediction. [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited April 12, 2001).]
heypartner, not every team in college plays the zone, why do you suspect that many teams in the NBA will? I like the rule change just b/c 4 on the weakside pointing at people's feet was boring. This rocks!!! ------------------ ballerina, you must have seen her... dancing in the sand
HP, Partially I did mean relative to other guards such as Stockton, Kidd, Payton, etc., but I do also think it can help Steve improve his game and therefore make things easier. One of the things that frustrates me with Steve is at times he can take a lot of threes when the ball is swung around or just when his man is guarding him at the three point line. Imho, the zone defense will force Steve to penetrate more and as a result have more open 15 foot looks. I have seen Steve make these jumpers very well when given the opportunity, but too often in the transition or in the half court set Steve seems too complacent to take the three. I know he can make the threes well, but he has more well rounded abilities. Teams playing a zone against the Rockets will force more penetration, and imho when Steve gets those 15 foot jumpers he will become more reliant and comfortable with that shot as his season and career move on. The zone defense imho will make Steve have a more consistent and potent midrange game, and that over the longhaul will make his offensive repetoire all the more dangerous. ------------------ President of the Mo Taylor, Jason Collier, and draft Richard Jefferson fan club! Draftsource.net ClutchTown.com
achebe, I don't like the rules, not because I don't like zones, or I don't like Knight's Motion...rather it is because I think it creates an unpredictable change in the balance of power b/w offense and defense. without a doubt, the team with a better center plays better zone...in every scenario. We already know that the team with the better center plays better offense. Now, we are allowing the awesome centers even more power. Good or bad...?? Regardless, this is a shift in power that creates a further rift between center haves and have nots.
Advantages of the Zone: 2001-2002 Matt Bullard 26 ppg Walt Williams 24 ppg ------------------ Ceo of the Walt Williams and Lisa Malosky fan club. atheistalliance.org
A defensive second rule will be established limiting the amount of time a defensive player may stand in the lane when he is not closely guarding anyone. Whooa! How confusing is this? Fine, implement zone defenses, thats cool. But don't lay down a little zone negative, like above, to balance it out. Can anybody else see the total confusion the above rule will cause? ------------------
CB4's quote on TNT; "All these new rule changes are stupid. And the people who came up with them are stupid." Amen Sir Charles, Amen. ------------------ The season's almost over...and I still really need that keg of Pepto-Bismol.
I didn't mean to sound insane, I'm just an ignoramus. I know nothing about zone defense and how to counter it. I've just heard stuff about the zone killing Francis and ruining the offense. I do not follow the college game at all. All I know is that the NCAA is low scoring. ------------------ Hakeem "The Dream" Olajuwon is the greatest player in the history of basketball. If you disagree, you are not a Rocket fan.
Anyone else catch Fox Sports' little thing on it. Interviewed Steve, Rudy, and Mo. Here's a recount of Francis' interview (word for word): "I hate it, I hate it, I hate it, I hate it, I hate it, I hate it, I hate it, I hate it, I hate it, I hate it, I hate it," He followed that up by saying his game will definitely be affected, and that the zone hurts the more athletic players. (Yes, he literally said I hate it a dozen times or so.) Rudy said basically it hurts creativity, it won't help scoring, it'll only hurt it, etc. etc. Mo said it'll hurt the stars of the league, and not allowing the great players to be great players. Yeah, CB4 and The Jet were saying how they could come back. Kenny was great, said something like "All I can do now is shoot, I'm a pretty good rec player, but all I can do is shoot. Even I could play in the NBA next year if all I gotta do is guard an area and shoot. And I'm pretty sorry now, by NBA standards. All this does is allow the sorry players, who can just shoot, to play in the NBA." ------------------ "That's been a lifelong dream of mine." -Vince Carter, after laying it in on a breakaway, much to the Vancouver crowd's displeasure.
Could this affect Steve's plans on re-upping with the Rockets next Summer? ------------------ Hakeem "The Dream" Olajuwon is the greatest player in the history of basketball. If you disagree, you are not a Rocket fan.
