Bill & Calvin were hinting that Rudy & Co., in light of the rules changes, ALREADY have some sets\plays in mind for next year. Anybody out there have any ideas (HeyPartner, etc.) or inside info. (oilpere, etc.) as to what to expect on offense next year? Will we see more of a Double-High set? Steve and Cat work off picks on the weak side? Even more reliance on the break, as evidenced last night? Thoughts? ------------------
I've got to believe highest priority will be to devise new defenses. The first NBA teams to implement fast zones will gain the upper hand over those that spend most of their effort on changing their offense.
Without a second thought, I would go big. You know how many teams go small and play 3 guards. My prediction is that the short-lived era of the zone in Stern's NBA will produce teams playing 3 power forwards. seriously man, if I were Pat Riley, I would retire the point guard position from my team. I would play 'Zo, 3 fast power forwards, and Eddie Jones. He already has Mason and Grant, so go get a Ruben Patterson or Fortson-type, and you are NOT going to beat them in the low post, yet they will crush you on the boards if you don't go big with them. You put Jones on the best guard and Mason on the next best short guy. It doesn't matter that Mason doesn't have speed to keep up with Sprewell (for instance), because you are playing zone. Question is, how is Sprewell going to stop Mason (especially on the boards)? Forget talk of 2-1-2s, 1-3-1s and 1-2-2s, they can play simple stuff....ike everyone plays man except for 'Zo. But count on Riley producing a devastating match-up zone that focuses on eliminating all passing lanes and driving lanes. Basically, you play a point defender against the ball and form a triangle behind him with 2 other guys. This triangle adjust as the ball is swung around the wing, while maintaining two weakside defenders at all times.
This new zone rule will help coaches with college coaching experience ala Larry Brown... I would think that it's been a while since Rudy T used a zone D, or even played in a zone D... ------------------ "Awesome baby!" Dick Vitale
Think last year. That little event Rudy got a shiny ring for last night, and a pretty medal for several months back Interesting Pat Riley should come up in this thread, as he probably hasn't had anything to do with a zone for 30 or more years. Complete aside -- I agree with the KILT afternoon guys. It looks much more like a "Keith Jones in a Dream Uniform" bobble-head doll than a "Hakeem Olajuwon bobble - head doll!" ------------------
I'm going to have a blast watching teams try to shoot over zones all the time because that is the worst thing you can do to a zone. The zone is like quicksand, the more you struggle the more you sink. A zone, the more you shoot, the worse off you are. There are a few teams I have seen use weak variations of zones, even though they're supposed to be illegal. San Antonio, Utah, Miami, mostly the last 2 years moreso then this year, and Indiana. Basically slow-footed teams. ------------------ See the three, be the three. [This message has been edited by RocksMillenium (edited April 18, 2001).]
kidrock, I haven't ridden a bike in 5 years. But, I think I can still do it. Larry Brown has an advantage because he has the best center for zone in the league. Pat Riley never coached college, but I think he can teach a zone, and I think 'Zo can remember it after all these years. sheesh What does college coaching experience have to do with knowing how to coach or to play against a zone? Coaching is 5% keeping up with new systems, 25% figuring out how to break them down so you can teach them, and 70% convincing your players to believe in the system. Rudy is all over the 70% part, something Rick Pitino couldn't achieve with NBA players. By your logic, I can't help but think that Battier should be a better defender than Kobe simply because Kobe never played college zone. hogwash...Kobe can guard the fastest, highest jumping athletes on the planet, and zone will just make it easier for him to take chances.
RocksMillenium: I'm not sure htat I agree. It seems that zones are only devastating or even very effective in college when the other team isn't knocking down their shots. Case in point: Duke versus Temple. Temple always plays that wicked matchup zone, and it upsets a great many teams. But the thing most of those teams hvae in common is that they're dependent on superior athleticism. The zone is terrific for nullifying that. But then Duke comes along... and they always beat Temple, sometimes quite badly. Why? Because they hit their shots. Fine, Jason Williams doesn't get as many driving layups... he just knocks down his 3's. In the pros, EVERY team has enough guys who can hit consistently from the outside. In my mind, guys like Matt Bullard are going to prevent the zone from being effective-there are just too many shooters. The Rockets seem set here... I don't think the zone is going to work. ------------------ I would believe only in a God who could dance. - Friedrich Nietzsche Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001
I think we're going to see a lot of matchup zone a la Temple rather than the traditional 2-3 zone. Coaches will still want to keep some elements of man-to-man in their defensive philosophies for the most part. As in most things playing a zone also has a drawback, defenders get in the habit of relying too much on help and it can erode man-on-man D. C'mon HeyP, draw up some plays MAN!!! ------------------
NBA zones will be different then college zones because the players are bigger and clog up the lane more. Plus shooting has dropped dramatically in the NBA. Slashing is the perfect way to break down a zone. What helped Duke beat Temple 3 times out of the last 3 years or so was hot shooting obviously, and the ability to slash and break down the zone. Team can't hit outside shots all game, even Duke didn't do that. Duke did go inside to big men (Elton Brand, Carlos Boozer), and had slashers (Jason Williams, Shane Battier, Cory Maggette), to go along with the shooters (William Avery, Mike Dunleavy), etc. It takes a combination off all of those elements to beat a zone, and that is why Duke beat them. It wasn't a coincidence that the Duke teams that beat Temple went on to the national championship game. They had the complete package. A team with only an inside game and no outside shooting are going to die against the zone. Teams who only shoot and have marginal or no inside game will get worn down against a zone since it will be extended to stop the 3 point shot. But slashers are always capable of breaking down a zone because there will always be some kind of a crack that can be penetrated in a zone. Just shooting over a zone exclusively is playing into it's hands, because that is what a zone is used mostly for, other then protecting your big men from foul trouble. It takes a team off of their game and makes them exclusively a jump shooting team. Live by the three, die by the three. And you don't want that unless you're a three point shooting team. As much as people hated the inside-out attack of the Big 3, the Big 3 would have slaughtered a zone, because you couldn't pack it in on Chuck or Dream or Mario and Clyde and Maloney would kill you, and you couldn't extend the zone to the perimeter because Charles, Big Kev and Dream would kill you, and if you could do both, Clyde and Mario could slash and destroy the zone from the inside. That's what I mean. Zones are the devil, why the NBA wants to dance with the devil, I don't know. ------------------ See the three, be the three. [This message has been edited by RocksMillenium (edited April 18, 2001).]
By the way haven, I agree that the Rockets will not be effected by the zone. Slashing guards are like kryptonite to zones. And if you don't have a quality PG to set the tempo prepare to die a slow, agonizing death once the zone rears its ugly head. ------------------ See the three, be the three.
Originally posted by BrianKagy: I'd run a 4-3 except on obvious passing Man that's a big 10-4 all the way!! ------------------ Rudy T. will find and fulfill Rockets destiny.
We will run an offense similar to Iowa St. Everything starts with a dominant guard. From penetration and help d, that's how we get open looks. The bad thing is if we can't get penetration, our offense stalls. I'm very thankful that we may have 3 first round picks this year. We can get a headstart on these new rules. ------------------ Draftsource.net
I keep hearing the argument that zones will place a premium on PGs. That zones will help bad defensive players. Those are very popular statements; and when your main focus is on offense to combat zones, it is very true indeed. But you know what? I am of the complete different mindset. imo, the most important thing is to look at ALL system priorities from the mindset of fielding the very best defense under these new rules. I am now in the mindset of John Chaney. I look at it the complete opposite than those who focus on offense adjustments and mention the importance of PGs. In order to field a top notch NBA zone, you will need athletic big men. That is why I expect to see teams fielding 3 power forwards at a time so that any of the three can handle the paint and the infamous "back door" of the zone that is supposedly exposed for the taking. imo, the league will see a race to have the best zone. Not a race to see who can conceive ways to beat zones. If I field 3 power forwards and one tall guard (like Eddie Jones), why do I care if your PG penetrates into the teeth of my defense, especially when I am going to rule the boards and the lane unless you match up with me. Since the winner of the battle of the paint consistently wins in the NBA and zones allow your big mean to control the paint better, I believe we will see a premium on big men over guards, and a premium on big guards over small ones. Thus, relatively speaking, the importance of the Bibby's and Van Exels of this world could go down. That scenario is conceivable. How can you deny it. I'm simply describing a paradigmatic shift to the importance of defense since the rules favor better defenses. Imagine an NBA of small line-ups (more guards than prototype systems), spreading the court so guards can penetrate...easy isn't it...because that is what we have now. Now, imagine an NBA with zone that wants to close the lane finally with big line-ups (more big men than prototype systems). That will be ugly! [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited April 18, 2001).]
I still don't see zones as being that useful for anybody once the novelty wears off, except maybe veteran teams like Utah that don't have much speed. Look, the real purpose of a zone is to nullify individual athletic ability. Teams with athletic talented players don't need to do this, and a zone almost always has a little "give" in it at the periphery, to allow for the switches. Good shooters are going to exploit that, no matter what. I didn't mean for Duke alone to be the example here. Look at who Temple USUALLY upsets: athletic teams that don't shoot very well. If you can knock down shots from long range, you can win. I think it will be the same in the NBA. I'll agree that slashers are effective against zones as well. I just think that shooting over it is the staple. ------------------ I would believe only in a God who could dance. - Friedrich Nietzsche Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001 [This message has been edited by haven (edited April 18, 2001).]
I disagree, as you are only talking about college here. We don't really know what will happen in the NBA where individual athletic ability is not rare. In the NBA, the true purpose of the zone will turn out to be simply..., to win the battle of the paint....the killing fields. Winning the paint means winning the boards. And you will win the paint by fielding bigger, taller athletes regardless of offensive talent. Zones create a shift from small line-up match-up problems to big line-up match-up problems. What am I missing here? Just because few college teams can sign a bunch of 6'10"+ athletes, doesn't mean an NBA team can't do it. [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited April 18, 2001).]
So heypee, a quick, long, athletic 7-footer, that can shoot lights out would be a good thing to have? Let's hope Dan eats his spinach. For even more dreamcasting fun, in the case we could get Mo and Webber and keep Dream, you would start/play Dream and the 2 PFs? ------------------ "That's been a lifelong dream of mine." -Vince Carter, after laying it in on a breakaway, much to the Vancouver crowd's displeasure.
Yes...if I could, I would force you to go big. What are you going to do...penetrate a supposed seam in Chaney's defense and shoot a midrange jumper? How are you going to outrebound me? How are you going to stop me from getting second chance points? When people say Matt Bullard's stock will go up, because zones eliminate his defensive weakness....all I can say is...well zones makes it easier for Anthony Mason to guard Mobley, too.
