PDA

View Full Version : Coach K's coaching philosophy on m2m v. zone



whereinthehellami
03-25-2007, 11:45 AM
Last season really got me wondering about Coach K's coaching philosophy. Its hard to argue against his success but it was also hard to watch his inability to adapt to some game situations. I think this would have been a great year to implement and use some zone defense. Zoobs, Thomas, Pocius, and Paulus really struggled with man to man defense and were continually beaten and isolated by their man. A zone might have utilized their strengths (Zoobs height underneath the basket and Thomas length along the baseline). Paulus also would have been backed up by a 7 footer in a zone when his man penetrated past him.

So my question is why did Coach K stick with man to man and not go zone. Did Coach think that we could overcome our deficiencies in man to man or was it that he didn't want to bother with a zone for the short term? Or was it that a zone is just against who he is as a Coach?

I really think that playing zone a majority of this year would have won us 5-6 more games this year. Alot of the teams that we struggled with weren't that great of shooting teams but seemingly just beat us off the dribble.

I would really like to see Coach K use the zone next year as I see alot of the same problems but worse for next years defense. We are losing our best rebounder and shot blocker. There is no one that can just step in and replace those numbers. Our returning frontcourt players really struggled against guarding their men in man to man defense this year.

Anyway those are just my opinions and observations. It was hard to watch us just getting beaten time and time again. It was also hard to watch other teams with similar issues adjusting and making their opposition switch offensive schemes. I think Pitt was a good example, Gray would have been killed in a man to man defense but was quite the roadblock in their zone.

What do you guys think? What are the reasons that we didn't go zone?

Constantstrain 81
03-25-2007, 12:15 PM
I understand the basic premise behind the man to man. Help defense, pressure on the ball and the pass, working as a unit, etc. It has served us well over the years and will serve us well again. In fact, earlier in the year, we were playing great defense. That was man to man we were playing.

Still, I've always felt the most adaptable teams are the best. I think that it is true that, in instances, man to man is not the best defense for some teams. I hate to watch a team that has struggled mightily against three straight opponents (who played them zone) come to play us and give us a tremendous game driving beating us one on one. Why can't we do what works in a given instance? I promise that I won't think us unmanly if we play some zone. In addition, I think that the transition from one to another can un-nerve an opposing team.

Anyway, what do I know? I haven't won any national championships. (I have won state championships, but that was in swimming and we certainly didn't play any zone there).

Still ...

dukie8
03-25-2007, 12:36 PM
he's stubborn. man-to-man, with the right personnel, is the best defense. however, this year, we did not have the right personnel -- paticularly for the aggressive man-to-man that k likes to play. i felt like we were playing 4 on 5 on defense for most of the season because it was a given that paulus's man was going to get past him. unfortunately, k had a little of john thompson as the olympic coach in him this year as his approach appeared to be "we are using my system and i'll be damned if the players can't execute it."

dkbaseball
03-25-2007, 03:07 PM
Like the current president, K is in love with principles, perhaps a legacy of his up-by-the-bootstraps, West Point upbringing. Two of his principles seem to be man-to-man defense and all-out effort all the time. The problem with strict allegiance to principles is that they sometimes prevent you from adapting to facts on the ground.

phaedrus
03-25-2007, 03:52 PM
maybe he's hoping the team will learn the man-to-man, especially if zoubek can emerge as a shot-blocker.

think of the olympic team playing duke man-to-man with athletes like kobe and lebron forcing turnovers and dwight howard and elton brand down low. maybe they can learn how by 2008.

Bob Green
03-25-2007, 03:58 PM
I disagree with the premise that we would have had more success playing a zone defense. A zone would have exacerbated our shortcomings.

A 2-3 zone is vulnerable to dribble penetration. In fact, the text book strategy to attack the 2-3 zone is to have your ball handler split the defense up top and drive the lane. Additionally, playing zone allows the opponent to position his players to maximum mismatches. We started 3 guards all year which doesn't align with a 2-3 zone because one guard has to play down low, which would probably have been Nelson. Nelson would have been guarding opponents big men all year resulting in foul trouble. Playing a 2-3 zone would have resulted in our leading scorer riding the pine due to fouls.

A 1-3-1 zone is vulnerable in the corners and on the baseline. Our opponents would have attacked the baseline all night. The foul problems experienced by Thomas and Zoubek's mobility limitations would have been exploited. I will concede the points that McRoberts and McClure have the skills to excel in a 1-3-1 zone, and that a 1-3-1 zone aligns with a 3 guard line-up. However, we didn't have the personnel to defend the baseline for 40 minutes.

I believe the desire, by some fans, to see Duke play a zone defense is a function of the "what we are doing now isn't perfect so doing something different is better" phenomenom. This year was a rebuilding year but there is no reason to rip down the foundation of the organization and start from scratch.

Duke will continue to play tough man-to-man defense and we will be successful.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

CDu
03-25-2007, 03:59 PM
There are some pretty clear counterarguments against the zone:

1a) with limited practice time, it isn't possible to become proficient in two styles of defense (very few good defensive teams employ both zone and man);
1b) given 1a, Coach K prefers to focus on one defensive style, and he feels that man-to-man is the superior defense;
2) zone defenses can be destroyed by a good shooting team because finding open shots is easier;
3) it is harder to rebound in a zone, because it's less clear whom you're supposed to box out.
4) a zone is still easy to penetrate with quick guards, and if you do that, you may actually be more susceptible to be scored upon (it's harder to recover in zone once your defense has broken down).

These are strong reasons why we don't play zone, in my opinion.

Beyond that, I am very skeptical of your statement that playing zone would have won us more games. I'd argue that if Coach K had wasted time teaching the zone rather than making us as efficient as possible in man-to-man, we'd probably have lost more games.

Furthermore, I don't know which games you think a zone would have helped against. VCU was a great perimeter shooting team, and would have torched a zone with open shots (they did most of their damage shooting 3s, NOT breaking down the defense). NC St was also a great shooting team. Hard to say a zone would have helped, because Atsur shot the lights out anyway (may have helped in the post, but who knows?). UNC was just a superior team. I don't think a zone makes a difference in our likelihood of winning. Maryland beat us with transition buckets, turnovers, and great shooting. A zone doesn't fix that. FSU shoots great from outside, and they'd have killed us on the glass (especially Thornton). Again, not sure a zone is smart there We forced 25+ turnovers against Ga Tech. They beat us by forcing an up-tempo game, so I'm not sure a zone makes a difference. Va Tech and Marquette beat us because they forced turnovers. A zone doesn't cut down our turnovers.

So basically, UVa is the only game where a zone might have solved some problems. And even then, I'm not sure that giving Singletary and Reynolds more room to slash to the lane is a good idea. And since we might have lost more games by being less proficient in man-to-man, I'd say that more than outweighs any potential benefit of the zone.

bluedevil
03-27-2007, 04:27 AM
Too bad K never plays a zone like coach G, Florida, or Georgetown. Georgetown zoned UNC late and the heels missed 22 of their last 23 shots. Georgetown's big man Hibbert had 4 fouls and the zone protected him from fouling out, plus zones are good late in a game when teams are tired and don't have the legs to make outside shots. Florida zoned Duke in the 2000 NCAA tourney and upset them as Duke missed tons of outside shots late in the game. K was heavily criticized for refusing to zone UConn in 99 or 2004 even though UConn struggled mightily against zone defenses. Coach G mixes defense up and uses zones, often holding opponents under 30% shooting.

Duke, especially in the NCAA, usually loses to athletic teams that can't shoot but slash to the basket or have big men that dominate inside. Duke also often gives up huge leads late when its one decent big man gets 3 or 4 fouls and stops playing defense, leading to dunks and layups by the other team as they score the last 18 points to win by 1. Having overwhelming talent like 6 mcdonalds allamericans this year and 8 or 9 next year is great, but without sound strategy it's often wasted. 1 seeds have never lost to 16 seeds, and beating an 8 or 9 is a walk in the park especially for extremely talented teams like Duke that never lose to unranked nonconference teams. The fact that even when #1 in the nation, Duke has lost in the first slightly challenging game 1/3 of the way through the NCAA for the past several years should be cause for concern. Especially when losing the same exact way to the same kinds of teams. With no change in strategy or adaptation during games or seasons or through the years.

whereinthehellami
03-27-2007, 09:20 AM
Could this coming season be the one that Coach K implements a zone. We are going to really struggle if he doesn't. We are losing are only real shot blocking threat and best rebounder and probably replacing him with a freshman who will struggle in the post. I would love for Zoobs to suprise everyone and be the answer but with his footspeed and reaction time, man to man just doesn't seem ideal for him or Duke. Zone would definately help Duke hide some of their holes on the defense of end; size, lack of speed, and athletiscm. Either way, its going to be an interesting year next year. Hopefully not too painful to watch on the defensive end.

devildownunder
03-27-2007, 09:32 AM
I disagree with the premise that we would have had more success playing a zone defense. A zone would have exacerbated our shortcomings.

A 2-3 zone is vulnerable to dribble penetration. In fact, the text book strategy to attack the 2-3 zone is to have your ball handler split the defense up top and drive the lane. Additionally, playing zone allows the opponent to position his players to maximum mismatches. We started 3 guards all year which doesn't align with a 2-3 zone because one guard has to play down low, which would probably have been Nelson. Nelson would have been guarding opponents big men all year resulting in foul trouble. Playing a 2-3 zone would have resulted in our leading scorer riding the pine due to fouls.

A 1-3-1 zone is vulnerable in the corners and on the baseline. Our opponents would have attacked the baseline all night. The foul problems experienced by Thomas and Zoubek's mobility limitations would have been exploited. I will concede the points that McRoberts and McClure have the skills to excel in a 1-3-1 zone, and that a 1-3-1 zone aligns with a 3 guard line-up. However, we didn't have the personnel to defend the baseline for 40 minutes.

I believe the desire, by some fans, to see Duke play a zone defense is a function of the "what we are doing now isn't perfect so doing something different is better" phenomenom. This year was a rebuilding year but there is no reason to rip down the foundation of the organization and start from scratch.

Duke will continue to play tough man-to-man defense and we will be successful.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan


I think this is a false dichotomy. Even if K had them play zone every minute from day one this year it wouldn't necessarily mean that next year's team couldn't play man-to-man. And I don't even think that kind of drastic change would have been necessary. The idea would have been to have it available as a change of pace when man-to-man just wasn't working. This team, more than any other K has had, would have really benefited from this, IMO. Other teams have won doing this. Why can't that be the case at Duke?

Anyway, I guess I'm wasting my time. K has been around a long time and won a lot of games. Nobody's going to convince him to change his philosophies at this point. He's the only one who can convince him of anything like that at this point, and hopefully we'll never have a season bad enough under him for that to happen.

devildownunder
03-27-2007, 09:34 AM
K was heavily criticized for refusing to zone UConn in 99 or 2004 even though UConn struggled mightily against zone defenses.

could you write more about this please? thank you.

bluedevil
03-27-2007, 09:54 AM
Duke practiced a zone in the 99 NCAA tourney but K refused to use it against UConn in the biggest title game upset in history even though the only games UConn had lost that season were to zone teams including Syracuse. Sports Illustrated was very critical of K's coaching in that game especially noting the refusal to use zone defense. In 2004, Duke's 3 big men Shelden, Shav, and Horvath, all fouled out in 41 combined minutes to UConn's huge frontcourt of Okafor, Boone, Armstrong, Villanueva. Using zone defense would have protected Duke's big men from fouls and may have kept UConn from dominating the paint, and again UConn like many other seasons had struggled against zone teams like Syracuse that year. How about this year's NCAA with Georgetown's late zone protecting their center Hibbert when he had 4 fouls and forcing UNC to miss 22 of their last 23 shots? Did K watch that and decide that he wasn't even going to play 5 seconds of zone next season or any other year?

The Gordog
03-27-2007, 09:56 AM
Ummm, we DID play some zone this year. It didn't help. And our M2M defence was tremendous early in the year, so we clearly had the personnel. Everyone said our defence was lacking late in the season due to a lack of communication. That means there is a chemistry problem. Personally, I think the problem was Josh and his attitude, but that's just speculation. Either way, playing zone does not fix communication/chemistry problems.

devildownunder
03-27-2007, 09:58 AM
Duke practiced a zone in the 99 NCAA tourney but K refused to use it against UConn in the biggest title game upset in history even though the only games UConn had lost that season were to zone teams including Syracuse. Sports Illustrated was very critical of K's coaching in that game especially noting the refusal to use zone defense. In 2004, Duke's 3 big men Shelden, Shav, and Horvath, all fouled out in 41 combined minutes to UConn's huge frontcourt of Okafor, Boone, Armstrong, Villanueva. Using zone defense would have protected Duke's big men from fouls and may have kept UConn from dominating the paint, and again UConn like many other seasons had struggled against zone teams like Syracuse that year. How about this year's NCAA with Georgetown's late zone protecting their center Hibbert when he had 4 fouls and forcing UNC to miss 22 of their last 23 shots? Did K watch that and decide that he wasn't even going to play 5 seconds of zone next season or any other year?

hi thanks. I'm aware of what happened in the games. I wanted to know where you found all these people who were criticising K after the fact.

Jumbo
03-27-2007, 09:59 AM
There's a lot of bunk in this thread and it's clear that some, though not all, don't even really understand what a zone is. I can't speak for Coach K, but I can speak for myself:

Myth 1: Coach K never plays zone. In fact, Duke played zone for stretches of several games this year, including the VCU game. Unfortunately, VCU scored on nearly ever possession against Duke's zone, which, if I remember correctly, was some verison of a 1-2-2 with man principles.

Myth 2: Zone is fundamentally different from man-to-man. Untrue. In fact, the best zones incorporate many man-to-man principles. And when man-to-man is played at a high level, it almost resembles a zone because the help defense is so good. There are many different ways to skin the man-to-man cat, so to speak.

Myth 3: You can hide a big man in the center of a zone. Not true at all. A big man, say Zoubek, is responsible for moving in all different directions, depending on the type of zone being played. In fact, in some ways, lateral movement is more important playing zone than man. And, even if a zone would have helped Zoubek defensively, it would have done nothing to cure his offensive issues. Fact is, Zoubek has to get stronger, especially in his lower body, before he can be truly effective at either end.

Myth 4: Zones stop dribble penetration. As Bob Green said, some zones are actually easier to attack off the dribble. It's called "gapping" a zone -- man dribbles at an area of a zone, forcing two defenders to close in on him. In its simplest form, this leads to a kick-out for an open three-pointer, which is pretty much a layup at the college level. What it also does, though (especially after another pass or two), is open up driving lanes. Suddenly, guys are finding clear paths to the basket, where they meet a big man like Zoubek, who has little choice but to foul.

Myth 5: Zones help the bigs. In fact, it's much harder to rebound out of a zone than man-to-man, simply because you're not matched up next to a guy to box-out. This was one of Duke's better defensive rebounding teams in a while; zone defense would have compromised this strength.

Look, there's a reason why almost every team plays man-to-man almost exclusively. The best zones are, not surprisingly, also almost exclusive, like Cheney's old matchup zone at Temple or Boeheim's 2-3 at Syracuse. And both involve(d) significant man-to-man principles. I am a firm believer that man-to-man D is vastly superior to zone, particularly because it can be so flexible (i.e. how far do you extend? Do you deny the wings? Trap the pick-and-roll? Switch on everything? Double the post?). The real question is why Duke went from playing stifling man-to-man D for the first 2/3 of the season (better than any season in a long, long time) to some pretty lousy D at the end. No one really knows, but Dave McClure's injury certainly is a plausible explanation -- Duke was 4-8 after he hurt his knee (as Al Featherston pointed out), and he was Duke's best help defender.

DCDevil2
03-27-2007, 10:28 AM
Duke practiced a zone in the 99 NCAA tourney but K refused to use it against UConn in the biggest title game upset in history?

This is an example of hyperbole taken to an entirely new level. Bluedevil, do you really what believe you wrote here. Can you really think that UConn's win in the 99 championship games was a bigger upset than Villanova over Georgetown in 85 - even though UConn was clearly one of the two best teams all year, was ranked #1 in the AP poll for 10 weeks during the season, and was never ranked lower than #4.

bluedevil
03-27-2007, 10:33 AM
According to the pointspread, the 99 title game was the biggest upset in NCAA title game history. Everyone agrees K was outcoached, mainly because of his refusal to zone UConn. Zones would help against a lot of athletic or big teams that can't shoot, the kind that usually beat Duke 1/3 of the way through the NCAA.

feldspar
03-27-2007, 10:49 AM
This is an example of hyperbole taken to an entirely new level. Bluedevil, do you really what believe you wrote here. Can you really think that UConn's win in the 99 championship games was a bigger upset than Villanova over Georgetown in 85 - even though UConn was clearly one of the two best teams all year, was ranked #1 in the AP poll for 10 weeks during the season, and was never ranked lower than #4.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's hyperbole. It was a pretty freakin' big upset.

Villanova over Georgetown in '85 or NC State over Phi Slamma Jamma were pretty big as well, though.

devildownunder
03-27-2007, 10:55 AM
I wouldn't go so far as to say it's hyperbole. It was a pretty freakin' big upset.

Villanova over Georgetown in '85 or NC State over Phi Slamma Jamma were pretty big as well, though.



I would call it major hyperbole. Only the people who weren't paying attention thought UCONN had no chance against us in 1999. Vegas had us as a lock but I just can't believe people who followed college basketball closely thought Duke was a lock that year.

On the other hand, in the two games you mentioned, NOBODY thought the underdogs had any chance at all. Pundits, fans, nobody.

Troublemaker
03-27-2007, 10:58 AM
According to the pointspread, the 99 title game was the biggest upset in NCAA title game history. Everyone agrees K was outcoached, mainly because of his refusal to zone UConn. Zones would help against a lot of athletic or big teams that can't shoot, the kind that usually beat Duke 1/3 of the way through the NCAA.

Can't compare point spreads between games in the pre-shotclock era and games in the shotclock era. Ultimately, it's a 1 seed with two losses beating a 1 seed with two losses (inclusive). Not really that big an upset.

feldspar
03-27-2007, 10:59 AM
I would call it major hyperbole. Only the people who weren't paying attention thought UCONN had no chance against us in 1999. Vegas had us as a lock but I just can't believe people who followed college basketball closely thought Duke was a lock that year.

On the other hand, in the two games you mentioned, NOBODY thought the underdogs had any chance at all. Pundits, fans, nobody.

You must not have a great memory because I remember all the hype in '99. The hype is exactly what made me so nervous about that game. Stupid TV analysts were calling that team one of the greatest of all time. The hype, deserved or not, was ridiculous, and only set the stage for Khalid El-Amin's "we just shocked the world" comment.

Exiled_Devil
03-27-2007, 11:21 AM
According to the pointspread, the 99 title game was the biggest upset in NCAA title game history. Everyone agrees K was outcoached, mainly because of his refusal to zone UConn. Zones would help against a lot of athletic or big teams that can't shoot, the kind that usually beat Duke 1/3 of the way through the NCAA.

I won't comment about the game being the biggest upset ever - others have done that well enough with reference to Nova and the Cardiac Pack.

However, your assertion that "everyone agrees K was outcoached" is unprovable, ridiculous and almost definitionaly hyperbole. it doesn't help your case to try to assert a universal truth when it is opinion. It may be a common opinion, it may be an accurate opinion, but to say that it is universal undermines your argument.

Exiled

throatybeard
03-27-2007, 11:23 AM
Duke practiced a zone in the 99 NCAA tourney but K refused to use it against UConn in the biggest title game upset in history even though the only games UConn had lost that season were to zone teams including Syracuse.

Yes, all two of the games UConn lost, both without their starting five intact. And that was "the biggest title game upset in history."

People can keep saying it. Doesn't make it true.

devildownunder
03-27-2007, 11:27 AM
You must not have a great memory because I remember all the hype in '99. The hype is exactly what made me so nervous about that game. Stupid TV analysts were calling that team one of the greatest of all time. The hype, deserved or not, was ridiculous, and only set the stage for Khalid El-Amin's "we just shocked the world" comment.

Believe me, I remember the hype all too well. The fact that you and I both got sick of it and feared it would bite us in the rear I think is a evidence in my favor but the biggest evidence is the usually worthless polls. Duke was not the no.1 team all year. If 99.9 percent of the knowledgeable fans, coaches, writers thought we were unbeatable, surely Duke would have been.

I agree that plenty of media types talked us up huge that year but my recollection is that people who were actually paying attention knew there were TWO teams head and shoulders above the field that year.

Exiled_Devil
03-27-2007, 11:28 AM
There's a lot of bunk in this thread and it's clear that some, though not all, don't even really understand what a zone is. I can't speak for Coach K, but I can speak for myself:


If I may add:
Myth 6: Bad man to man can be solved by going zone. The reality of defense is that as a player, learning one and learning another relies on similar principles. For example, if Marty was lost in the man to man, he would have been lost again in the zone, which requires even more coordination than the man to man. Also, switching back and forth could have made him and others even more confused. Have you ever noticed teams when they don't all play the same defensive style in the same possession? It is pretty bad.

I think people are trying to find ways to resolve the problem of not winning as much as we would like to win. The issue is, we can't replay games, so debating over the merits of zoning UNC in January or State in February is useless. And all the teams will be different next year - we can't predict how our team or any other will be because we have no idea what the summer holds for the players.

Exiled

throatybeard
03-27-2007, 11:37 AM
There's a lot of bunk in this thread and it's clear that some, though not all, don't even really understand what a zone is. I can't speak for Coach K, but I can speak for myself:

Myth 1: Coach K never plays zone. In fact, Duke played zone for stretches of several games this year, including the VCU game. Unfortunately, VCU scored on nearly ever possession against Duke's zone, which, if I remember correctly, was some verison of a 1-2-2 with man principles.

Myth 2: Zone is fundamentally different from man-to-man. Untrue. In fact, the best zones incorporate many man-to-man principles. And when man-to-man is played at a high level, it almost resembles a zone because the help defense is so good. There are many different ways to skin the man-to-man cat, so to speak.

Myth 3: You can hide a big man in the center of a zone. Not true at all. A big man, say Zoubek, is responsible for moving in all different directions, depending on the type of zone being played. In fact, in some ways, lateral movement is more important playing zone than man. And, even if a zone would have helped Zoubek defensively, it would have done nothing to cure his offensive issues. Fact is, Zoubek has to get stronger, especially in his lower body, before he can be truly effective at either end.

Myth 4: Zones stop dribble penetration. As Bob Green said, some zones are actually easier to attack off the dribble. It's called "gapping" a zone -- man dribbles at an area of a zone, forcing two defenders to close in on him. In its simplest form, this leads to a kick-out for an open three-pointer, which is pretty much a layup at the college level. What it also does, though (especially after another pass or two), is open up driving lanes. Suddenly, guys are finding clear paths to the basket, where they meet a big man like Zoubek, who has little choice but to foul.

Myth 5: Zones help the bigs. In fact, it's much harder to rebound out of a zone than man-to-man, simply because you're not matched up next to a guy to box-out. This was one of Duke's better defensive rebounding teams in a while; zone defense would have compromised this strength.

Look, there's a reason why almost every team plays man-to-man almost exclusively. The best zones are, not surprisingly, also almost exclusive, like Cheney's old matchup zone at Temple or Boeheim's 2-3 at Syracuse. And both involve(d) significant man-to-man principles. I am a firm believer that man-to-man D is vastly superior to zone, particularly because it can be so flexible (i.e. how far do you extend? Do you deny the wings? Trap the pick-and-roll? Switch on everything? Double the post?). The real question is why Duke went from playing stifling man-to-man D for the first 2/3 of the season (better than any season in a long, long time) to some pretty lousy D at the end. No one really knows, but Dave McClure's injury certainly is a plausible explanation -- Duke was 4-8 after he hurt his knee (as Al Featherston pointed out), and he was Duke's best help defender.

Game, set, match, McEnroe.

bluedevil
03-27-2007, 11:50 AM
People are forgetting Georgetown zoned UNC late, successfully protected their center Hibbert who had 4 fouls, and UNC missed 22 of their last 23 shots. There was a whole long thread on what the heck happened to UNC late in the Georgetown game and I didn't see zone mentioned once, bizarre. It's like Duke fans don't want to talk about it or even mention zones because it reveals one of K's glaring weaknesses. Zoning teams late in games is a good idea, Florida upset Duke in 2000 by forcing them to brick a bunch of outside shots on tired legs.

rsvman
03-27-2007, 12:51 PM
You can say what you want about the superiority of one type of defense over another, but for the life of me I don't see how you can rationally defend the position that having complete defensive inflexibility is a superior approach. All this talk about how a team can't learn two defenses and play them both well is a crock. Not only could they learn two defenses, they could probably learn 3 or 4, or even more. It's not like they just picked up a basketball the day before they reported to the first practice.

When the University of Utah faced a vastly superior (talent-wise) Arizona team in the 1998 (or 1999?) NCAA tournament, Rick Majerus crafted a defense specifically designed for use against Arizona in that game. Not only did his players not become confused, but they beat Arizona by over 20 points. Made them look bad. You could look it up, it really happened. Was that Utah team 20 points better than that Arizona team. No way. If they had just gone with any old defense that they had "learned better" they probably would have lost the game. But they ADAPTED to the circumstances (what a concept!) and won the game.

Duke fans may recall that they then went on to beat a UNC team that featured future NBA stars Vince Carter, et al., using a different defense than what they had used against Arizona.

If the athletes that suit up for the U of U can do it, what is the rationale behind the idea that better athletes (like the ones we have playing at Duke) are incapable? Are our athletes STUPIDER than those at Utah? It is likely Duke's athletes are smarter. Are our athletes LESS EXPERIENCED in basketball? It is likely they are MORE experienced.

No, the only reason they don't adapt is because Coach K doesn't like to play zone. Period.

3rdgenDukie
03-27-2007, 01:29 PM
According to the pointspread, the 99 title game was the biggest upset in NCAA title game history. Everyone agrees K was outcoached, mainly because of his refusal to zone UConn. Zones would help against a lot of athletic or big teams that can't shoot, the kind that usually beat Duke 1/3 of the way through the NCAA.

Yeah, Rip Hamilton was a crappy shooter. And Ricky Moore (for that game) and Al Mouring. UConn was the EPITOME of a good-shooting team - they sure as hell weren't getting their scoring from Voskuil and Freeman on a regular basis. They'd have torched us even more had we played zone in that game. Our issue was not finding a way to get Brand involved.

As for an upset, it was probably one of the SMALLEST upsets in NCAA history. UConn was 34-2, was ranked #1 for more weeks than Duke, and hadn't lost a game when all 5 starters were healthy. I realize what the idiots who hyped Duke that year thought, but it is insane to even put that 'upset' up against 'Nova, NCSU, Syracuse, Arizona, Kansas or several other title games in the last 25 years. Just ridiculous.

BTW, we made a stirring comeback against a current final four team based on agressive man-to-man defense. Like Jumbo said, when we played good m-t-m early this year, we were one of the best defensive teams in the country. It won't change, nor should it.

whereinthehellami
03-27-2007, 03:21 PM
I agree that the differences between a zone and M2M can be blurry but I think those semantics are getting in the way of the probelm. Duke didn't seem to adjust to getting beaten badly by penetrating teams that were more athletic than us. It just seemd to me that Coach K could have made some adjustments to the M2M to give the other team different looks. There were stretches where we were just getting beaten off the dribble time after time, why not packet it in more and make the other team try and beat on us from the outside some.

These are going to be the same issues that Duke will be facing next year but worse as are only really imposing frontcourt player is gone. If Coach K stays the course, no amount of effort and communication are going to help the players as they will be isolated and beaten. Help defense within a smallball, comparitively unathletic team will only go so far.

Obviously the sky is not falling and Duke will be better next year and have a better record but I would like to see Coach K switch things up somehow on the defense of end. I just think he has more options than he utilizes, especially when guys are getting beat play after play.

DukeVu
03-27-2007, 04:19 PM
You can say what you want about the superiority of one type of defense over another, but for the life of me I don't see how you can rationally defend the position that having complete defensive inflexibility is a superior approach. All this talk about how a team can't learn two defenses and play them both well is a crock. Not only could they learn two defenses, they could probably learn 3 or 4, or even more. It's not like they just picked up a basketball the day before they reported to the first practice.

When the University of Utah faced a vastly superior (talent-wise) Arizona team in the 1998 (or 1999?) NCAA tournament, Rick Majerus crafted a defense specifically designed for use against Arizona in that game. Not only did his players not become confused, but they beat Arizona by over 20 points. Made them look bad. You could look it up, it really happened. Was that Utah team 20 points better than that Arizona team. No way. If they had just gone with any old defense that they had "learned better" they probably would have lost the game. But they ADAPTED to the circumstances (what a concept!) and won the game.

Duke fans may recall that they then went on to beat a UNC team that featured future NBA stars Vince Carter, et al., using a different defense than what they had used against Arizona.

If the athletes that suit up for the U of U can do it, what is the rationale behind the idea that better athletes (like the ones we have playing at Duke) are incapable? Are our athletes STUPIDER than those at Utah? It is likely Duke's athletes are smarter. Are our athletes LESS EXPERIENCED in basketball? It is likely they are MORE experienced.

No, the only reason they don't adapt is because Coach K doesn't like to play zone. Period.

This quote is right on. Jumbo et al just do not want to admit that K is inflexible. No one is advocating that he Abandon the M-on-M, just that he learn to practice some flexibility depending on the circumstances. Great coaches SHOULD be able to make changes on the fly because his players have been taught to be flexible. Aren't Duke's athletes smarter than MOST?

Also, our competition the first half of the season was just inferior and we had too much talent for them, and I am not speaking of the FEW talented teams we did play. Heck, he doesn't have to play conventional zone's, just CREATE some NEW twists. Is that so hard for the GREATEST ever. When teams know what you are going to do every play Great coaches exploit it.

Jumbo
03-27-2007, 04:29 PM
According to the pointspread, the 99 title game was the biggest upset in NCAA title game history. Everyone agrees K was outcoached, mainly because of his refusal to zone UConn. Zones would help against a lot of athletic or big teams that can't shoot, the kind that usually beat Duke 1/3 of the way through the NCAA.

A) Who is "Everyone?"
B) I don't think K was outcoached by any of his defensive decisions. I believe it was firmly his inability to adjust to the way UConn was doubling Brand (big-to-big) and his decision to run an iso play for Trajan Langdon with the game on the line that were the biggest examples of getting "outcoached."

mapei
03-27-2007, 04:30 PM
This is an example of hyperbole taken to an entirely new level. Bluedevil, do you really what believe you wrote here. Can you really think that UConn's win in the 99 championship games was a bigger upset than Villanova over Georgetown in 85 - even though UConn was clearly one of the two best teams all year, was ranked #1 in the AP poll for 10 weeks during the season, and was never ranked lower than #4.

As a Georgetown fan, I'd really prefer that you use the NC State-over-Houston example. Thanks.

Jumbo
03-27-2007, 04:31 PM
People are forgetting Georgetown zoned UNC late, successfully protected their center Hibbert who had 4 fouls, and UNC missed 22 of their last 23 shots. There was a whole long thread on what the heck happened to UNC late in the Georgetown game and I didn't see zone mentioned once, bizarre. It's like Duke fans don't want to talk about it or even mention zones because it reveals one of K's glaring weaknesses. Zoning teams late in games is a good idea, Florida upset Duke in 2000 by forcing them to brick a bunch of outside shots on tired legs.

Yeah, it was really Georgetown's zone that made UNC miss open shot after open shot. Please. Sometimes, teams don't shoot well. And there were gaps all over that zone that, for some reason, Lawson refused to attack. How about all of the teams that went zone in the Tourney and got thrashed? How about when Duke went zone against VCU and got thrashed? You present one example and expect it to stand? Please.

Jumbo
03-27-2007, 04:42 PM
This quote is right on. Jumbo et al just do not want to admit that K is inflexible. No one is advocating that he Abandon the M-on-M, just that he learn to practice some flexibility depending on the circumstances. Great coaches SHOULD be able to make changes on the fly because his players have been taught to be flexible. Aren't Duke's athletes smarter than MOST?

Also, our competition the first half of the season was just inferior and we had too much talent for them, and I am not speaking of the FEW talented teams we did play. Heck, he doesn't have to play conventional zone's, just CREATE some NEW twists. Is that so hard for the GREATEST ever. When teams know what you are going to do every play Great coaches exploit it.

Yeah, that's exactly it. I don't want to admit that Coach K is infexible. I posted something earlier in the season showing just how flexible K was this season:
-He started the season running the offense through McRoberts at the top of the key.
-Paulus came back, and he ran the offense through him.
-Then, when Paulus struggled, he ran a post-oriented offense with McRoberts on the block.
-When that didn't work, he switched to an offense that rarely dumped the ball in the post, didn't rely on a true point guard, ran old-school sets like the weave, and played pretty close to pure motion. And Duke was playing its best offense at the end of the year.
You're right, though, using four different offenses over the course of the season is the mark of an inflexible coach. Thanks for pointing that out.

Then there's this brilliant remark: "our competition the first half of the season was just inferior and we had too much talent for them, and I am not speaking of the FEW talented teams we did play." Yeah, that makes sense. Let's rip the early competition, except for the good competition. I think Georgetown's a pretty good offensive team. I seem to remember them scoring 96 points on Sunday. How many did they score against Duke's man-to-man? Try 52. That's right -- 52 freaking points. I guess Duke could've held Georgetown to 40 if they'd only played some zone, though.
This thread is getting ridiculous. The people complaining haven't recognized that:
1) Duke actually DID play zone in various games this year.
2) Duke's defense was only a problem late in the season.
3) Duke switched to zone to slow VCU, and only got outscored worse during that stretch.
4) You can trace Duke's defensive struggles almost directly to McClure's knee injury.
This is another example of Backup Quarterback syndrome. Things aren't going the way people want, so they automatically feel like there's some change that will magically fix things. Well, it doesn't work that way. Man-to-man, when played right, is a better defense than zone. That's why more than 90% of college teams use it as their primary D. And there is absolutely no reason why a team struggling with man won't struggle with zone. K had a young team, but one with great potential at both ends. And he clearly was teaching them to play Duke man over the course of the season.
Then again, people wanted K run out of town in the early 1980s because he wouldn't play zone back then, too. How did that one work out?

rsvman
03-27-2007, 05:47 PM
Yeah, that's exactly it. I don't want to admit that Coach K is infexible. I posted something earlier in the season showing just how flexible K was this season:
-He started the season running the offense through McRoberts at the top of the key.
-Paulus came back, and he ran the offense through him.
-Then, when Paulus struggled, he ran a post-oriented offense with McRoberts on the block.
-When that didn't work, he switched to an offense that rarely dumped the ball in the post, didn't rely on a true point guard, ran old-school sets like the weave, and played pretty close to pure motion. And Duke was playing its best offense at the end of the year.
You're right, though, using four different offenses over the course of the season is the mark of an inflexible coach. Thanks for pointing that out.


Um, this shows that K exhibited flexibility on the OFFENSIVE end. Nobody is saying he didn't show offensive flexibility. The discussion is about DEFENSIVE flexibility. How does any of the above address the issue at hand?

Troublemaker
03-27-2007, 05:53 PM
Um, this shows that K exhibited flexibility on the OFFENSIVE end. Nobody is saying he didn't show offensive flexibility. The discussion is about DEFENSIVE flexibility. How does any of the above address the issue at hand?

You're right, of course. K IS inflexible on defense but I'm not sure it's a problem so much as a quirk of his. Both K and his mentor Knight are exclusive man-to-man guys. They are also the only active coaches with 3 national championships.

Richard Berg
03-27-2007, 06:02 PM
No one is advocating that he Abandon the M-on-M, just that he learn to practice some flexibility depending on the circumstances.
He did. In addition to the times when we played actual zone, the shape our M2M took was always changing. As Jumbo noted, its flexibility is actually one of its greatest strengths.

In fact, I don't think it's farfetched to suggest that nearly every Duke timeout and halftime involves some tweaking to the D. When the guards are having trouble with penetration, they sag off more. When a shooter has gone hot/cold, they make sure to fight above/below the screener. Etc.

Nevertheless, let's put one thing to rest.
Myth 7: great M2M teams can't learn great zones. Look no farther than Coach G's teams from the past couple years. They have been an absolute joy to watch on the defensive end. G likes to throw every defense in the book at opponents, and then some. They never know where the next trap is coming from...and neither do you, which is why it's so exciting. Even against Rutgers, the D wasn't bad. The only time it really suffered IMO was the loss to State.

On the old board, I posted an analysis of the changing strategies seen in the women's first few premiere games (MD, UNC, Tennessee, MD #2) that unfortunately got buried. Suffice to say our mastery of various defenses was impressive. Obviously it helps to be led by two defensive POY candidates with a combined 9 years of experience. I don't think we should expect that kind of range from a team of freshman and sophs. Nevertheless, it's clear to me the foundation has been laid: if K wants to expand his defensive repertoire even further, he'll have the opportunity in 2008 and 2009. I don't think the lapse in our basic M2M skills seen between Jan and March will recur so long as everyone stays healthy and Paulus/Nelson/McClure finish their maturation into upperclassmen leaders.

rsvman
03-27-2007, 06:11 PM
You're right, of course. K IS inflexible on defense but I'm not sure it's a problem so much as a quirk of his. Both K and his mentor Knight are exclusive man-to-man guys. They are also the only active coaches with 3 national championships.

This is true. Also, I'm pretty sure you can add John Wooden to this list, if memory serves, of guys who played exclusively man-to-man (somebody correct me if I'm wrong). And he won a few championships, too.;)

DukeVu
03-27-2007, 07:32 PM
.

Then there's this brilliant remark: "our competition the first half of the season was just inferior and we had too much talent for them, and I am not speaking of the FEW talented teams we did play." Yeah, that makes sense. Let's rip the early competition, except for the good competition. I think Georgetown's a pretty good offensive team.
This thread is getting ridiculous.

It IS getting ridiculous. Jumbo, can't you read? I specifically said that except for the FEW talented teams and that included GEORGETOWN or did you not know that? Talk about ridiculous. Do I have to spell out the good and the poor teams that we played in early season. You seem to have all the answers so I just figured . . . . .


The people complaining haven't recognized that:
1) Duke actually DID play zone in various games this year.
2) Duke's defense was only a problem late in the season.
3) Duke switched to zone to slow VCU, and only got outscored worse during that stretch.

This just emphasizes that they haven't been taught a Zone (and there are more than one you know) that is suited to their personnel.


4) You can trace Duke's defensive struggles almost directly to McClure's knee injury.
This is another example of Backup Quarterback syndrome. Things aren't going the way people want, so they automatically feel like there's some change that will magically fix things. Well, it doesn't work that way. Man-to-man, when played right, is a better defense than zone. That's why more than 90% of college teams use it as their primary D.

Where did the 90% come from? you are always asking for posters to give their sources.


And there is absolutely no reason why a team struggling with man won't struggle with zone. K had a young team, but one with great potential at both ends. And he clearly was teaching them to play Duke man over the course of the season.

Young team, young team. Enough already. How old is Georgetown, UNC?
Two freshmen made first team all-america. Great argument!

Then again, people wanted K run out of town in the early 1980s because he wouldn't play zone back then, too. How did that one work out?

Bobby Knight had great talent, K had great talent, Wooden had great talent.
How is Knight doing now that his talent level has diminished? Great coaching is done when your talent level doesn't contain 2 all-americas. We know K is a great recruiter. . . . .but that's part of coaching too, because we know great players make great coachs.

Troublemaker
03-27-2007, 08:22 PM
This is true. Also, I'm pretty sure you can add John Wooden to this list, if memory serves, of guys who played exclusively man-to-man (somebody correct me if I'm wrong). And he won a few championships, too.;)

Yeah, I'm not old enough to have seen Wooden's teams play, but they were known for zone pressing and then falling back into a man-to-man in the halfcourt. He was very much a m2m devotee in the halfcourt.

I think the key thing is what others have mentioned, which is that all choices come with a price. One could argue that if Duke had practiced and played zone more often in 99, it would've beaten UConn. Maybe, maybe not. But what other results over the years could maybe have changed if Duke weren't an exclusive man-to-man team? Does Duke 92 still put on that withering display of m2m defense during the second half of the Final Four game against Indiana if Duke had split practice time during the season between learning man and learning zone? Maybe that defensive display that keyed victory was man-to-man defense perfected, and Duke needed all that practice time to reach that point. Similarly, does Duke 01 still force Maryland into 21 turnovers in the Final Four game to fuel Duke's comeback victory if more time had been spent learning zone principles instead of overplay-and-help principles? Maybe, maybe not. K made a choice long ago to be an exclusive m2m team (except on rare occasions). All choices come with opportunity cost. In the end, I'll live with the results we've achieved with his choice.

Troublemaker
03-27-2007, 08:24 PM
Bobby Knight had great talent, K had great talent, Wooden had great talent.
How is Knight doing now that his talent level has diminished? Great coaching is done when your talent level doesn't contain 2 all-americas. We know K is a great recruiter. . . . .but that's part of coaching too, because we know great players make great coachs.

I'm not sure what your point is in relation to this thread. I hope it's not that Knight, K, and Wooden are not great coaches.

devildownunder
03-27-2007, 08:27 PM
Game, set, match, McEnroe.


Please, please tell me that the reason you quoted that post in red isn't the one i'm thinking.

Jumbo
03-27-2007, 09:25 PM
Um, this shows that K exhibited flexibility on the OFFENSIVE end. Nobody is saying he didn't show offensive flexibility. The discussion is about DEFENSIVE flexibility. How does any of the above address the issue at hand?

Coach K was called "inflexible." Do you really think his personality is so divided that he behaves one way on one half of the court and is the polar opposite on the other end?

Exiled_Devil
03-27-2007, 10:52 PM
This quote is right on. Jumbo et al just do not want to admit that K is inflexible. No one is advocating that he Abandon the M-on-M, just that he learn to practice some flexibility depending on the circumstances. Great coaches SHOULD be able to make changes on the fly because his players have been taught to be flexible. Aren't Duke's athletes smarter than MOST?

Also, our competition the first half of the season was just inferior and we had too much talent for them, and I am not speaking of the FEW talented teams we did play. Heck, he doesn't have to play conventional zone's, just CREATE some NEW twists. Is that so hard for the GREATEST ever. When teams know what you are going to do every play Great coaches exploit it.

I'll throw myself in to your assumed 'et al', I guess and say this: Just because we don't agree with you doesn't mean we won't 'admit' Coach K is inflexible. The real reason that I am disagreeing with you is that I think you are wrong. It has nothing to do with my assessment of K, and everything to do with my assessment of your argument.

You (and all of us) are arguing with incomplete information, because you do not have access to all of the practices and timeouts that occur during games. On top of the incompleteness, you are also adding in erroneous information -e.g the idea that K never used zone this year, when he did in the most recent game we played, among many others.
Moreover, you are ignoring relevant information: Jumbo's main thesis as far as I can tell is that our defense went downhill when McClure was injured. You haven't acknowledge or publicly considered that option as an explanation of the issues with defense. IMO, the 'pre-conference schedule was weak' concept is lazy. We had a top 10 OOC schedule.

In response to your ideas about going zone more often, I say that early in the season we had no need for it - we had excellent defense. After Dave's injury, we had issues. Rather than throwing out the work done already, I am not surprised that the coach worked on improving the same defense that had done so well up to that point. He adjusted and played differently within man in ways that were subtle, but he kept a focus on what worked well.


Exiled

whereinthehellami
03-28-2007, 09:08 AM
This whole we played zone and you missed it thing is kind of humorous. Its like your saying that Coach K runs a zone that is so subtle that no one but a few fans with the keenest of eyes and basketball acumen can notice. Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of switching defenses? I remember seeing a couple really brief looks of a M2M/match-up zone defense but it was seemingly gone before even the other teams offense had to even really worry about addressing it. Even the announcers were like Duke is in a zone, err...no its M2M (because they switched out so quickly).

I agree that a zone isn't the end all answer but more different looks in the M2M might do wonders. We seemed to stick with the overplaying the passing lanes, suffocating/extended M2M defense when teams continually were able to get easy baskets. Steals/forced turnovers were less frequent than easy baskets/layups. I think alot of that had to do with our players. Paulus, Pocius, Scheyer, and Zoobs (when he flashes out top) all struggle with speed/athletiscm/length (good length in Zoobs case). Thomas seemed to really struggle with switches/communication, and defensive space (alot of bumping calls). Yet i think all of those players are smart basketball players. They anticipate well but just don't seem to be able to stay with the guy off the dribble. Maybe Paulus and Pocius's injuries played a big part of their struggles on defense this past year. The question would then be why not help those players and Zoobs use a defense that would be more tailored to their strengths (bball IQ).

Richard Berg
03-28-2007, 11:21 AM
I agree many of the things that looked like 2-3 zone were actually M2M with lots of sagging and switching. Howver, we played a true 1-3-1 a few times during the ACC season. We posted video clips on the old boards and discussed them in detail.

jjasper0729
03-28-2007, 12:23 PM
There were maybe four or five times I saw in Cameron where they were actually in a 2-3 zone. These were mostly coming out of a timeout and guarding an inbounds play. I think you're right though Berg... what people were calling a 2-3 zone a lot of the time this year was more an aggressive switching m2m defense which is kinda close, but not the same.

rsvman
03-28-2007, 01:47 PM
I remember seeing a couple really brief looks of a M2M/match-up zone defense but it was seemingly gone before even the other teams offense had to even really worry about addressing it. Even the announcers were like Duke is in a zone, err...no its M2M (because they switched out so quickly).


In most cases where I heard announcers state that Duke was in a zone, they were actually in a man-to-man but the offensive players were just standing around. As soon as the offensive players began to make cuts, it became obvious that Duke was really in a man-to-man. When the offensive team is just standing the man-to-man can be confused with a zone if the defense is sagging off even a little.

In other words, I'd make the argument that throughout this season, everytime I heard an announcer say that Duke was playing a zone, they were actually in a man-to-man the whole time, rather than that they switched out of the zone quickly.

dukie8
04-01-2007, 09:46 AM
i think that what people are saying is that duke needs to be able to play a zone for more than a play or a couple of minutes and i can't recall a single instance of duke playing zone for more than a minute or 2. i am listening to espn radio right now and boeheim was just asked what was the key reason why ohio st beat gtown and he said their use of a zone. granted that he is biased but a key to gtown beating unc also was its use of a zone for a sizable part of the 2nd half (and the key part when they made their comeback). i really don't buy the arguments that people keep on making on here that "we tried a zone for a minute and got burned on it so had to drop it," "we don't practice it so we cannot use it in a game," "it takes months of intensive practice and we don't have time for that," "it's easier to penetrate a zone," "only at duke does it leave bigs in foul trouble more exposed than mtm" or "nobody but k knows what goes on in practice." practice it and use it when necessary. i have a hard time believing that ohio st and gtown are able to get over all of these phantom hurdles that people keep on posting on here but duke cannot.

regarding your "lazy" dismissal of the argument that our defensive stats were better in the 1st half than in the 2nd half due to an easier schedule, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. you really cannot be serious if you think that we played better teams in nov and dec than we did in feb and march. the acc schedule was decidedly backloaded and the 1 ooc game we played in feb was against a pathetic st johns team. after feb 1, we had both unc and both maryland games, our only game against uva (road) and the road games against bc and clemson. all of those cushy home games against the likes of sjs, temple, gm, kent st, columbia, uncg and ga southern were long in the rear view mirror come feb 1. we better have much better defensive stats against all of those cupcakes at home than against ncaat teams in the acc on the road.

whereinthehellami
04-02-2007, 08:51 AM
i think that what people are saying is that duke needs to be able to play a zone for more than a play or a couple of minutes and i can't recall a single instance of duke playing zone for more than a minute or 2. i am listening to espn radio right now and boeheim was just asked what was the key reason why ohio st beat gtown and he said their use of a zone. granted that he is biased but a key to gtown beating unc also was its use of a zone for a sizable part of the 2nd half (and the key part when they made their comeback). i really don't buy the arguments that people keep on making on here that "we tried a zone for a minute and got burned on it so had to drop it," "we don't practice it so we cannot use it in a game," "it takes months of intensive practice and we don't have time for that," "it's easier to penetrate a zone," "only at duke does it leave bigs in foul trouble more exposed than mtm" or "nobody but k knows what goes on in practice." practice it and use it when necessary. i have a hard time believing that ohio st and gtown are able to get over all of these phantom hurdles that people keep on posting on here but duke cannot.

When you just play one defense or slight variation thereof I think you make it easier for the other team's offense to get into a rythym. When you switch defenses, the other team has to make adjustments and that takes them out of the flow of the game. A team is dictating tempo by switching defenses, taking control.

whereinthehellami
04-03-2007, 01:52 PM
Florida did a great job of switching up defenses last night. OSU never could get their outside game going. It helps when you got the horses though. What a frontline they had, especially when they are motivated. They really had no answer for Oden, other than thowing three big bodies on him. That worked though as Oden was a non-factor at the end of the game.

Good coaching job by Donovan. He'd be crazy to leave Florida. He's put his stamp on that program and elite level athletes love Florida, not a hard sell at all.

b&l
04-08-2007, 09:56 PM
In any battle strategies, or gamemanship, predictability is a killer. If a certain posture is considered highly likely, I can develop strategies to exploit that posture's weaknesses.
Over the years many things about Coach K's strategies have become one-dimensional. Multiple defensive postures has multiple applications. A team can set their defensive to the strengths and weaknesses of each individual opponent. Further, during a game, defenses can be switched frequently, keeping the other team off balance. Rather than focusing solely on execution of their offense, the other team's players begin wondering what defense they are now facing, and that mind game blunts their edge.
Unfortunately, defensive posture is just one of the one dimensionalities Coach K has slipped into. Another is not playing his full contingent of players. A core of 7-8 players become the ironmen of the team, wearing down as the season grinds toward tournament time. This also makes preparation for a Duke game more simple than if Duke had 10-12 players who could be switched in and out depending on a particular opponet, game situation, etc. The question would then become what sort of game face are they going to be showing us??? And that uncertainty in the opponent would be Duke's advantage.
But back to the thread, a great coach can read, as a game develops and unfolds little opportunities to throw unpredictabilities at the opponent, throwing them off balance. There are a lot of variants of both zone and man-to-man that can be mixed and matched fluidly throughout a game. Unfortunately, this is not something practiced by Duke coaching, not a strength of Duke basketball, and a frustration state of things that's got increasingly tough to watch.

dukediv2013
05-21-2007, 04:47 PM
Zone is not a possibility in the Duke defensive scheme. Duke is a very, very good defensive team every year and if everyone is healthy, a great man-to-man defense is the hardest to break down. Coach K knows what he is doing and by saying that we need to implement a zone is ridiculous. We will only start seeing a zone when Coach K's hair starts going grey! haha! GO DUKE! 9F!

ikiru36
05-21-2007, 05:21 PM
Zone is not a possibility in the Duke defensive scheme. Duke is a very, very good defensive team every year and if everyone is healthy, a great man-to-man defense is the hardest to break down. Coach K knows what he is doing and by saying that we need to implement a zone is ridiculous. We will only start seeing a zone when Coach K's hair starts going grey! haha! GO DUKE! 9F!

Fortunately, this has more to do with the corner drug store remaining open than father time. :0)

Piggie-backing, the ideal version of Duke's help-man shares a lot of zone principles anyways. When Duke's defenders are able to switch, as necessary, without risking major mismatches (i.e. all versatile, smart, decently athletic defenders), it looks even more like a zone (even when it's technically not). Like a zone, only better!

(of course, when played less than ideally, mismatches can be created to exploit weak on-ball defenders or poor help side assistance- btw, this is mostly what i remember gleaning from Duke basketball camp over 20 years ago, so feel free to school me if i'm way off conceptually in any of this)

Go Duke!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go Devils!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GTHCGTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

dw0827
05-21-2007, 05:40 PM
Having played b'ball for a long time, I believe that playing defense (and rebounding) is a mind-set. You've got to have a willingness and a desire and the guts to play great defense. Its MUCH easier to play offense than defense.

The fundamentals and the skills are basically the same whether you are playing m2m or zone.

If you have a bunch of guys whose fundamentals aren't very good, or who aren't willing to exert the effort necessary to play great defense, or if the team members aren't communicating with one another (remember its a team game) then it doesn't matter whether we play m2m or zone.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that we would have done any better playing zone. In fact, whatever caused us not not play well in m2m would have been worse in zone.

Having said all that, I am somewhat mystified as to why our defense caved late in the year. I can't believe it can all be McClure's injury. Other unpublicized injuries? Better teams late in year? Snowball effect of losing a few? Deteriorating chemistry?

I don't know. Whatever it was, I suspect it was mental/chemistry. Just a hunch.

ACCBBallFan
05-21-2007, 10:05 PM
Great discussion of merits of M2M vis a vis Zone defense.

Unfortunately this barely ranks in the dirty dozen reasons/excuses of why Duke's record was what it was.

Not necessarily in order just off the cuff as I type ...

#1 - too many turnovers.

#2 - poor FT shooting

#3 - not enough scoring. Here, if the M2M had resulted in more steals and break aways for layups or uncontested 3's, the discusssion might have been relevant to one over the other affecting team W-L, but that would probably sway in M2M favor.

#4 - chemsitry issues in the clubhouse has been rumored, but I discount that since teams like Oakland Raiders won despite it.

#5 - No Go-To Guy.

#6 - No Post presence on Offense

#7 - Wear and tear on Scheyer, Nelson et al a/k/a as not having or not playing depth. JJ reason with name change.

# 8 - McClure's scary re-injury that thankfully was not serious but it would only be human for it to affect his play the remainder of the year.

# 9 - Henderson suspension

#10 - Too few assists. Lance had one all year which is almost impossible if anyone were scoring in the post or hitting shots onhis pass backs.

#11 - One upperclassman. So Duke was almost always playing against more experienced teams, though some unexperienced teams did achieve despite this.

Even when Paulus was at his worst getting beat by penetrating guards, Duke's overall defense was superb, thanks in part of Josh doing his Shelden eraser imitation, and McClure rotating well.

Albeit not against the most elite competition, but no one else playing OOC had as good a defense, and lots of those teams BTW made the dance and did well in their conferences, so cupcakes is not the proper descriptor.

Duke won its games against Air Force, Lost to Marquette but was in it til almost the end, Indiana, Georgetown and Gonzaga thanks to its defense,

Solving the wrong problem. Defense was not nearly a cause as was lack of Offensive execution especially turnovers, FT's and post offense which would have opened up scoring from other positions.

In the first 29 games which includes most of the ACC schedule, the most points Duke yielded was 73-Marquette (game 5); 74 - GA Tech (Game 16-despite forcing or being the beneficiary of 28 turnovers) and 79 - UNC (game 24).

Then in 30th game, after giving up 85 and being swept by MD, the next three games were 86-UNC, 85 - NC St and 79 VCU.

Duke was a young team and lost confidence it never regained after trailing 44-38 at home against the Terps, and never really being in the game.

Not sure what all the reasons were, but M2M vs. Zone was nowhere near the top of the list.

You win or lose with what brung ya, and that was good defense, until the last 4 games where MD, UNC, NC St and VCU seemed to score at will,and would have whether Duke played M2M or a Zone it had not practiced as much.

The problem was between the ears, not between the defenses.

whereinthehellami
05-22-2007, 08:59 AM
Maybe this will focus the issue at least from my perspective. Zoubek came to Duke as a project, at least in my eyes. I was suprised by early reports and the first few games I saw him play in. He had decent hands, moved okay for a 7 footer, had a pretty good understanding of position, and didn't mind mixinig it up. I thought this guy could really help Duke. But then teams started taking advantage of his weaknesses (reaction time, athletiscm) by doing things like drawing him away from the basket where he would he easily be beaten or would pick up a quick foul. Now is the point, in my book, you ask yourself if Zoubek, who looks to have actual potential as a 7 footer, is worth making some adjustments. Does Duke try and tailor some sets around him? And yes, zones and M2M can be simliar, but I'm talking about a zone where Zoubek plays within a radius under the basket and does not come out. Obviously Duke didn't do that and whether or not that was a good call or a bad call will never be answered. I'm not talking about switching Duke to a system like that all the time but for some sets, why not. And I don't buy the whole there is not enough time to implement multiple systems arguement, other programs do it effectively and Coach K is very efficient, it could be done.

KrimsonKing
08-26-2007, 09:57 AM
Playing agressive man-to-man defense is great when you have 5 players to play that kind of defense.

Now,i have never claimed to be a rocket scientist but playing aggresive man-to-man out there with paulus and Jon in the backcourt might not be the best idea.

We lost a ton of games last year because K simply would not change his defense.

i am not saying we should play zone. play straight up man-to-man like gonzaga.

It makes little sense to me. Could someone set me straight if I am wrong here??

Olympic Fan
08-26-2007, 10:20 AM
"Could someone set me straight if I am wrong here??"

You're wrong.

You're wrong because you don't have a clue how Duke plays defense. Over the years ... over the course of a season ... over the course of games, Coach K alters his defense dozens of times. He does not simply play an aggressive, overplaying man-to-man defense. He plays straight-up man (like Gonzaga does!) He plays sagging man. He plays man defenses that switch on screens and he plays man defenses that fight through screens. He plays man defenses that pick up and pressure 90 feet; 75 feet; 45 feet or only at the top of the key in. He plays variations that pressure at some positions and not at others.

Yes, K plays 99 percent man, but he plays every version of man possible.

You are also wrong because last year with Paulus (hobbled by a bad foot) and Jon starting together last season Duke was the most efficient defense team in the nation for most of the year (measured by points per possession). That defense did break down late in the season -- but not because they COULDN'T play the defense he was asking them to -- they played it very well for 80 percent of the season.

I'm sorry, but it's hard to see somebody who doesn't understand how Duke plays defense criticisizing a coach who's been one of the nation's best defensive coaches for the last quarter century.

Man, this is like deja vu -- ill-informed Duke fans were making the same lame complaints in 1983 ... why doesn't he play zone? He'll never win with man-to-man!

dukie8
08-26-2007, 11:03 AM
"Could someone set me straight if I am wrong here??"

You're wrong.

You're wrong because you don't have a clue how Duke plays defense. Over the years ... over the course of a season ... over the course of games, Coach K alters his defense dozens of times. He does not simply play an aggressive, overplaying man-to-man defense. He plays straight-up man (like Gonzaga does!) He plays sagging man. He plays man defenses that switch on screens and he plays man defenses that fight through screens. He plays man defenses that pick up and pressure 90 feet; 75 feet; 45 feet or only at the top of the key in. He plays variations that pressure at some positions and not at others.

Yes, K plays 99 percent man, but he plays every version of man possible.

You are also wrong because last year with Paulus (hobbled by a bad foot) and Jon starting together last season Duke was the most efficient defense team in the nation for most of the year (measured by points per possession). That defense did break down late in the season -- but not because they COULDN'T play the defense he was asking them to -- they played it very well for 80 percent of the season.

I'm sorry, but it's hard to see somebody who doesn't understand how Duke plays defense criticisizing a coach who's been one of the nation's best defensive coaches for the last quarter century.

Man, this is like deja vu -- ill-informed Duke fans were making the same lame complaints in 1983 ... why doesn't he play zone? He'll never win with man-to-man!

it's a little early to start up the paulus flaming threads because they surely will pick up in full force once the season starts. however, there is a lot of truth to what the original poster hinted at. very aggressive man-to-mad d is the most effective d when you have the players to execute it and, in k's case, a pg who can guard the opposing pg shortly after he crosses the halfcourt line. these boards digressed last year into a group that thought paulus either can guard acc (or other elite pgs) or can once his foot heals and a group that thinks that he never will be able to. note that his defense his freshman year hardly was stellar.

also, your contrived stat that duke had the most efficient defense last year based on a few games played against inferior competition and never on the road (almost exclusively at home) doesn't mean much. as soon as duke hit the road and played acc teams (and it wasn't like the acc was full of final 4 caliber teams last year), the defense began a steady regression to the point that, by the acc tournament, it had difficulty stopping even the most ordinary offenses. nc st and vcu looked like the dream team on offense against duke. this was all the more upsetting given the fact that most of the duke players had little or no experience with k's complex defense and therefore one would have expected that the d would have improved -- not regressed -- as the season wore on.

MChambers
08-26-2007, 12:16 PM
I don't think the statistic is contrived. Our defense was rated quite highly by stats guru Ken Pomeroy, no Duke fan.
But you are right to point out that the defense worsened as the season went on. Was it due to our guards? Or maybe our big men? Lack of teamwork? All are possibilities. I certainly don't know, and I expect you don't either.
BTW, Wojo wasn't exactly the quickest point guard, either, but played good defense in our man-to-man on some pretty good defensive teams.
Anyway, if you want zone, you probably want to start following some other team. Maybe become a Syracuse fan! We're going to stick with man-to-man, and complaining about it is about as helpful as kicking the trash can.

VaDukie
08-26-2007, 12:17 PM
Don't discount McClure's injury in the declining play of our defense as the season went on. He wasn't the same player after BC at home.

MChambers
08-26-2007, 02:02 PM
Don't discount McClure's injury in the declining play of our defense as the season went on. He wasn't the same player after BC at home.

Excellent point.

PallasAthena
08-26-2007, 03:04 PM
KrimsonKing has Koaching Koncerns. Is it 1(t), or something new?

What Kind of Krimson are you, BTW?

mgtr
08-26-2007, 03:54 PM
I, for one, will not be flaming Paulus. I expect a lot from him this year -- he has some great teachers on the staff! I cannot pretend we won't have problems this year, but we have a coach who can make NBA players play defense!!!!

OZZIE4DUKE
08-26-2007, 10:32 PM
KrimsonKing has Koaching Koncerns. Is it 1(t), or something new?

What Kind of Krimson are you, BTW?

Definitely 1T. 'Nuff said, except 9F of course!

TillyGalore
08-27-2007, 08:36 AM
I, for one, will not be flaming Paulus. I expect a lot from him this year -- he has some great teachers on the staff! I cannot pretend we won't have problems this year, but we have a coach who can make NBA players play defense!!!!

I'm with you mgtr! I think Paulus is going to have a great year and am looking forward to him commanding the court.

dukie8
08-27-2007, 08:52 AM
I don't think the statistic is contrived. Our defense was rated quite highly by stats guru Ken Pomeroy, no Duke fan.
But you are right to point out that the defense worsened as the season went on. Was it due to our guards? Or maybe our big men? Lack of teamwork? All are possibilities. I certainly don't know, and I expect you don't either.
BTW, Wojo wasn't exactly the quickest point guard, either, but played good defense in our man-to-man on some pretty good defensive teams.
Anyway, if you want zone, you probably want to start following some other team. Maybe become a Syracuse fan! We're going to stick with man-to-man, and complaining about it is about as helpful as kicking the trash can.

pomeroy's stats are algorithmic so it is irrelevant whether he likes duke or not. the stat you quoted is contrived because it selectively chose a snippet of games off he duke schedule that were almost exclusively non-road games and/or against inferior competition. once hit the acc schedule -- and more importantly the road -- duke's defensive stats changed dramatically. what did uconn's defensive efficiency look like through dec 31 last year and at the end of the season?

with respect to wojo, as much as i loved watching him play and think that he is a great asst coach who soon will become a great head coach, his winning of the national defensive poy you have to take with a grain of salt. he was absolutely torched by kentucky in the regional finals. the best defensive player in the country never should let an opposing guard blow by him nearly every time down the court. that's what happens with awards that are voted on. do you think doherty deserves his national coach of the year the year he won it? also, as much fun it was to watch wojo, he still never made it to a final 4.

lastly, i never said that i want k to switch to a zone exclusively, but i do think that there are times, say the 2nd half against vcu, where the team clearly is not playing effective man defense and/or the team has significant foul trouble and switching to a zone for more than one possession would be more effective than continuing to get torched by the opposing pg and dunked on by the opposing bigs. i think that is what the original poster was getting at even though it seemed more extreme.

Olympic Fan
08-27-2007, 11:10 AM
pomeroy's stats are algorithmic so it is irrelevant whether he likes duke or not. the stat you quoted is contrived because it selectively chose a snippet of games off he duke schedule that were almost exclusively non-road games and/or against inferior competition. .

Pomeroy's stats contrived?

In the first place, let's be clear what we're talking about. Pomeroy ranked every team in the country based on the points allowed per possession. That's a far better guage of defensive prowess than (1) points allowed per game (which is impacted by tempo -- a team that plays a fast tempo will always give up more points than one that holds the ball and plays slow -- it doesn't mean the slow team is better defensively); (2) turnovers forced (it's possible for a team to play an all-or-nothing defense that gets a lot of steals, but otherwise is weak defensively); (3) opponents FG percentage (a good stat, but can be achieved with a packed in defense that doesn't challenge on the perimeter and hence doesn't force many TOs and can't force tempo).

No, points per possession is not perfect, but it's the best single defensive stat there is and it's not based on some weird mathematical formula.

Now, what about the claim that Pomeroy's stats are skewed "because it selectively chose a snippet of games off the duke schedule that were almost exclusively non-road games and/or against inferior competition."

Pomeroy's stats weren't selectively chosen -- he included EVERY game, preseason and conference and postseason; home and away; against weak and strong competition.

Duke did rank No. 1 in Pomeroy's poll for much of the season, based on strong play in December. Was that against weak competition? Well, according to the RPI, Duke played the 10th toughest non-conference schedule in the country. Were Georgetown, Gonzaga, Air Force, Marquette, Indiana, Temple all an example of this weak competition that formed the "snippets" that Pomeroy selected?

Did Duke benefit from playing a lot of home games? I'm sure they did -- but by the same token, they posted better defensive efficiency numbers at Clemson than against Clemson in Cameron and at Boston College, rather than against BC in Cameron. Duke's defensive efficiency at Virginia was quite good.

I think the key opponent to look at is at Maryland -- when Duke played them in College Park on Feb. 11, the Devils posted much better defensive numbers than when they played the Terps Feb. 28 in Cameron.

Clearly something was going on and it's not home/away or the quality of competition. Duke DID suffer a very real defensive slump late in the season. What caused it?

Well, I would agree that the injury McClure suffered against BC on Jan. 28 hurt -- he was one of Duke's most efficient defensive players to that point, one who understood the defense, could defend multiple positions and was especially effective as a help defender (which is the KEY to K's defense).

In addition, I think part of what happened was a young team wearing down. It's a fact that younger players have a harder time phyisically over a long season. Scheyer, who did a decent defensive job early, seemed to me to be a half-step slower at the end of the year. Thomas, who was unable to practice a lot of the year (which made it harder for him to maintain his stamina) also suffered. Interesting that Henderson, whose playing time was limited for much of the season, was the one young guy who finished strong.

But that's just speculation. I just know that after playing great defense for most of the first two-plus months of the season, Duke's defense started slipping late.

For the record, Duke finished the year ranked 5th in Pomeroy's defensive efficiency poll -- against the No. 3 toughest schedule in the country. That's every game ... not some snippet.

I have to say again, it's painful to read some of these posts. It's obvious that many of you just do not understand K's defense or what he's been trying to do for the last 27 years.

Everything is predicated on help defense. Even though it's man-to-man, every player has help responsibilities. Unless K has a Billy King or a Tommy Amaker-like stopper, he doesn't ask his perimeter defenders to shut down or shut off the man they're guarding -- only to channel them in a certain direction. His genius is that he's been able to adapt his defense to the defensive abilities of a wide variety of players -- Hurley was a great on-the-ball defender; Wojo wasn't ... Shelden Williams was a great off-the-ball shotblocker ... Billy King was the ultimate shut-down stopper ... Shane Battier was perhaps the greatest helpside defender in the history of college basketball.

He's shaped his defense to take advantage of those special talents ... and to win with some not-so-special talents.

K's defenses usually force a lot of turnovers, defend the 3 very well and allow a surprisingly high percentage on 2-point shooting. His defenses are usually poor defensive rebounding teams -- last year's team was an exception to that rule.

You just have to understand that when you see a player drive past Paulus, it's not always a defensive breakdown. Sometimes it is (and I'm not arguing that Paulus is a great defender -- although he is probably better than he showed last year with the bad foot or the year before as a true freshman).

And, please, stop this silly whining about playing a zone. In those instances where most of you want K to use a zone, he uses a very zone-like man to man -- sagging off the ball, playing between the man and the basket (instead of his prefered playing between the man and the ball) and switching on every screen.

throatybeard
08-27-2007, 11:48 AM
KrimsonKing has Koaching Koncerns. Is it 1(t), or something new?

What Kind of Krimson are you, BTW?

Originally I called it "1Z," but there are a few typos on the PDF version.

"1Z) Hey, I think we should play some zone--why don’t we ever do that?"

I'll do an edit circa basketball season.

Clipsfan
08-27-2007, 12:03 PM
Olympic Fan - Thank you for a nicely written response. I feel that an argument is much more impressive if it uses actual examples and cites the relevant statistics, such as Duke's final defensive rating and its overall schedule strength, rather than just making broad claims. I happen to agree with your thoughts as well, and think that a lot of what we remember as "bad defense" was a more tired group of young players and the multiple injuries which accumulated (there was a reason there were several surgeries at the end of the season).

JasonEvans
08-27-2007, 12:34 PM
If we were to conduct a poll of the smartest basketball minds on this site, I think OlympicFan would be waaaaay up there in the rankings (if not at #1).

Fabulous post, sir. Well explained and quite insightful.

--Jason "nothing more to add, just wanted to give Oly his mad props" Evans

dkbaseball
08-27-2007, 12:57 PM
K's defenses usually force a lot of turnovers, defend the 3 very well and allow a surprisingly high percentage on 2-point shooting. His defenses are usually poor defensive rebounding teams -- last year's team was an exception to that rule

And this is where I think he needs to make some adjustments. It seems to have become very clear in the coaching community over the last few years that the way to beat Duke is not to mess around on the perimeter, but to get the ball right to the hole with dribble penetration, get it up, and have a couple of athletic guys crashing the offensive boards. I'd wager second chance shots are the big reason the 2-point shot percentage against us is so high. Due to the type of defense it plays Duke simply doesn't take care of the defensive boards like it should.

I'm sure K has stats indicating it's better to defend the three effectively and give up a few more offensive rebounds and put-backs. But I'd argue that being constantly exposed as having a soft underbelly takes a psychological toll on the players, particularly the bigs. Our pressure defense is designed to be intimidating, but it becomes a bit of a joke if the other team just bypasses the perimeter pressure and plays the game strictly in the paint.

whereinthehellami
08-27-2007, 01:19 PM
I'll be really interested in seeing what Coach K does this year and what adjustments he makes as this team has some issues on the defensive side of the ball. His calculated solution will probably involve a four guard line-up with lots of ball pressure and many easy baskets for the opposition. He is definately between a rock and hard place with this year's personnel and his defensive philosophy.

greybeard
08-27-2007, 01:26 PM
Anyone who thinks that Duke does not play multiple defenses, most all of which might look the same to Joe the fan but flex, switch, help, very, very differently, ain't thinking. There is no single Duke Defense. It is a myth.

dukie8
08-27-2007, 01:51 PM
Pomeroy's stats contrived?

In the first place, let's be clear what we're talking about. Pomeroy ranked every team in the country based on the points allowed per possession. That's a far better guage of defensive prowess than (1) points allowed per game (which is impacted by tempo -- a team that plays a fast tempo will always give up more points than one that holds the ball and plays slow -- it doesn't mean the slow team is better defensively); (2) turnovers forced (it's possible for a team to play an all-or-nothing defense that gets a lot of steals, but otherwise is weak defensively); (3) opponents FG percentage (a good stat, but can be achieved with a packed in defense that doesn't challenge on the perimeter and hence doesn't force many TOs and can't force tempo).

No, points per possession is not perfect, but it's the best single defensive stat there is and it's not based on some weird mathematical formula.

Now, what about the claim that Pomeroy's stats are skewed "because it selectively chose a snippet of games off the duke schedule that were almost exclusively non-road games and/or against inferior competition."

Pomeroy's stats weren't selectively chosen -- he included EVERY game, preseason and conference and postseason; home and away; against weak and strong competition.

Duke did rank No. 1 in Pomeroy's poll for much of the season, based on strong play in December. Was that against weak competition? Well, according to the RPI, Duke played the 10th toughest non-conference schedule in the country. Were Georgetown, Gonzaga, Air Force, Marquette, Indiana, Temple all an example of this weak competition that formed the "snippets" that Pomeroy selected?

Did Duke benefit from playing a lot of home games? I'm sure they did -- but by the same token, they posted better defensive efficiency numbers at Clemson than against Clemson in Cameron and at Boston College, rather than against BC in Cameron. Duke's defensive efficiency at Virginia was quite good.

I think the key opponent to look at is at Maryland -- when Duke played them in College Park on Feb. 11, the Devils posted much better defensive numbers than when they played the Terps Feb. 28 in Cameron.

Clearly something was going on and it's not home/away or the quality of competition. Duke DID suffer a very real defensive slump late in the season. What caused it?

Well, I would agree that the injury McClure suffered against BC on Jan. 28 hurt -- he was one of Duke's most efficient defensive players to that point, one who understood the defense, could defend multiple positions and was especially effective as a help defender (which is the KEY to K's defense).

In addition, I think part of what happened was a young team wearing down. It's a fact that younger players have a harder time phyisically over a long season. Scheyer, who did a decent defensive job early, seemed to me to be a half-step slower at the end of the year. Thomas, who was unable to practice a lot of the year (which made it harder for him to maintain his stamina) also suffered. Interesting that Henderson, whose playing time was limited for much of the season, was the one young guy who finished strong.

But that's just speculation. I just know that after playing great defense for most of the first two-plus months of the season, Duke's defense started slipping late.

For the record, Duke finished the year ranked 5th in Pomeroy's defensive efficiency poll -- against the No. 3 toughest schedule in the country. That's every game ... not some snippet.

I have to say again, it's painful to read some of these posts. It's obvious that many of you just do not understand K's defense or what he's been trying to do for the last 27 years.

Everything is predicated on help defense. Even though it's man-to-man, every player has help responsibilities. Unless K has a Billy King or a Tommy Amaker-like stopper, he doesn't ask his perimeter defenders to shut down or shut off the man they're guarding -- only to channel them in a certain direction. His genius is that he's been able to adapt his defense to the defensive abilities of a wide variety of players -- Hurley was a great on-the-ball defender; Wojo wasn't ... Shelden Williams was a great off-the-ball shotblocker ... Billy King was the ultimate shut-down stopper ... Shane Battier was perhaps the greatest helpside defender in the history of college basketball.

He's shaped his defense to take advantage of those special talents ... and to win with some not-so-special talents.

K's defenses usually force a lot of turnovers, defend the 3 very well and allow a surprisingly high percentage on 2-point shooting. His defenses are usually poor defensive rebounding teams -- last year's team was an exception to that rule.

You just have to understand that when you see a player drive past Paulus, it's not always a defensive breakdown. Sometimes it is (and I'm not arguing that Paulus is a great defender -- although he is probably better than he showed last year with the bad foot or the year before as a true freshman).

And, please, stop this silly whining about playing a zone. In those instances where most of you want K to use a zone, he uses a very zone-like man to man -- sagging off the ball, playing between the man and the basket (instead of his prefered playing between the man and the ball) and switching on every screen.

you completely misread my post but that's ok -- i never said that pomeroy's stats are meaningless or that his stats are skewed. what i did say was your comment to the effect that duke had the most efficient defense "for most of the season" was contrived and it is. duke's #1 ranked defense through dec was largely a function of not playing any road games and playing a syracuseque home schedule against weak mid majors and other also rans. other than georgetown, which was busy integrating a new backcourt and losing to the likes old dominion and oregon early in the year, your list of "impressive" early opponents compiled a grand total of how many ncaa wins? the luster of most of those early wins against name opponents slowly wore off as the season progressed and those teams started racking up plenty of losses and, for the most part, falling flat on their faces. the georgetown win didn't seem that big of a deal at the time because of its other early loses, but wound up being the gem on duke's scalp list that probably was worth 2 or 3 extra seeds in the tournament.

as i stated earlier, i do NOT think that k should be switching to a zone and i do NOT think that the original poster was arguing that either. what i do think is that there are times that, whatever form of man k is using, clearly is not working (if it is obvious to me watching on tv then it is pretty obvious). the most obvious times are when one or more big guys are in foul trouble and whoever is covering the opposing pg is getting torched (ie, the opposing pg gets in the lane EVERY time down, which results in either a lay-up by the pg, an asst by the pg as he dishes to a big who dunks it or a foul on either the pg or big as he goes to dunk it). this happened throughout last year with the vcu game being the most painful one etched in my brain. maybe, just maybe, a zone would have at least slowed down the other team's trashing of duke's d.

JasonEvans
08-27-2007, 04:03 PM
Sigh-- haven't we had this discussion about a million times?

K believes that you succeed best in games by repeatedly doing things in practice. So, his teams play man-to-man all the time in practice. Obviously, they learn different aspects of man-to-man (as other posters have so adroitly explained elsewhere in this thread) but, from what I hear, they almost never practice any zone because K wants the man-to-man to be as good as it can be (and it has been quite good over the years). He feels that if they spent time practicing something else, it would detract from their success when they play man-to-man.

I have to admit, this seems like a reasonable theory. Practice it so you get as good at it as you can. Taking on another completely different defense would seem to hinder your ability to get great at either type of D. I also think it worth noting that the key to man-to-man is the help D when your man gets beat. That is the aspect that requires nearly endless practice to be great at.

-Jason "talk about counterproductive arguments-- like K is going to change his whole defensive philosophy after 30+ years of unparalleled success" Evans

Zeke
08-27-2007, 08:41 PM
Yes Coach K believes in m-m. Can't fault him in that. What hasn't been mentioned is that zone gives the guys a chance to rest on D whereas an agressive m-m does not. M-m is good for guys who are 3-4 year veterans of Coach K's "boot camp" but with a young team they need (and showed it a lot last year) a chance to catch their breath occassionally. Being captive to a "system" is not a good thing - overall. One really must be flexible and adapt to the personel you have - I really doubt the Coach K is very flexible - good coach but not flexible.

dwater
08-28-2007, 09:45 AM
What a lot of the individuals who are arguing for zone defense to be taught are forgetting is Duke didn't have a snowballs chance in hell last season to win the NC. So what's a few hard losses in season A if it brings success in season B from learning to correct the mistakes from season A?

Someone just mentioned that M2M works great when Coach K and Duke have 3-4 year players on the team. Well take last year as a step in that direction. Sure,we took our lumps. But these are the lumps of learning by fire. Coach is getting these players up to speed in the Duke system and if past results are any measure at all I expect Duke to really rebound and show the rewards for sticking to their "principles".

Everyone seems to want perfection every game out. Not going to happen.

Classof06
08-28-2007, 01:16 PM
you completely misread my post but that's ok -- i never said that pomeroy's stats are meaningless or that his stats are skewed. what i did say was your comment to the effect that duke had the most efficient defense "for most of the season" was contrived and it is. duke's #1 ranked defense through dec was largely a function of not playing any road games and playing a syracuseque home schedule against weak mid majors and other also rans. other than georgetown, which was busy integrating a new backcourt and losing to the likes old dominion and oregon early in the year, your list of "impressive" early opponents compiled a grand total of how many ncaa wins? the luster of most of those early wins against name opponents slowly wore off as the season progressed and those teams started racking up plenty of losses and, for the most part, falling flat on their faces. the georgetown win didn't seem that big of a deal at the time because of its other early loses, but wound up being the gem on duke's scalp list that probably was worth 2 or 3 extra seeds in the tournament.

as i stated earlier, i do NOT think that k should be switching to a zone and i do NOT think that the original poster was arguing that either. what i do think is that there are times that, whatever form of man k is using, clearly is not working (if it is obvious to me watching on tv then it is pretty obvious). the most obvious times are when one or more big guys are in foul trouble and whoever is covering the opposing pg is getting torched (ie, the opposing pg gets in the lane EVERY time down, which results in either a lay-up by the pg, an asst by the pg as he dishes to a big who dunks it or a foul on either the pg or big as he goes to dunk it). this happened throughout last year with the vcu game being the most painful one etched in my brain. maybe, just maybe, a zone would have at least slowed down the other team's trashing of duke's d.

I agree with this post 100%. Duke was the best defensive team in the nation in November and December, but anyone who was paying attention saw the defense slide as the opponents got tougher. There's just no denying that. And if our defense was so good, it wouldn't have disappeared at the most important time of the season, our last two reg. season games against our biggest rivals, the ACC Tourney, and the NCAA tourney.


I'm not going to start a Paulus-bashing rant here, but I think there were times last year where Krzyzewski's man defense struggled because Paulus, for whatever reason you want to use, was incapable of guarding the other team's PG. Now, you then have to move Paulus off the ball and put Nelson or Scheyer (good defenders but much bigger than PGs) on the ball, creating what may only be a very slight mismatch, but a mismatch nonetheless. This cost us the Marquette game in the beginning of the year and cost us the VCU game, our last game of the year. Dominic James for Marquette had 25 points, 7 assists by getting to the middle of the floor at will; Eric Maynor for VCU had 22 points and 8 assists in similar fashion.

Eric Maynor was being guarded by Scheyer towards the end of that VCU game (including the game winner) and that slight mismatch was exposed. This does not mean Scheyer is a bad defender; he's a very good defender. But he's not made to guard 6-2 PGs; that should be Greg's job. This is another reason I feel it's going to be damn near impossible for Krzyzewski to keep Nolan Smith off the floor this year. Smith, from watching his HS games, embodies Duke defense, plain and simple.

whereinthehellami
08-28-2007, 01:22 PM
K believes that you succeed best in games by repeatedly doing things in practice. So, his teams play man-to-man all the time in practice. Obviously, they learn different aspects of man-to-man (as other posters have so adroitly explained elsewhere in this thread) but, from what I hear, they almost never practice any zone because K wants the man-to-man to be as good as it can be (and it has been quite good over the years). He feels that if they spent time practicing something else, it would detract from their success when they play man-to-man.

I have to admit, this seems like a reasonable theory. Practice it so you get as good at it as you can. Taking on another completely different defense would seem to hinder your ability to get great at either type of D. I also think it worth noting that the key to man-to-man is the help D when your man gets beat. That is the aspect that requires nearly endless practice to be great at.

If you think talking about it on a message board is tiring I bet practicing the same thing over and over again has got to be equally frustrating. Duke's players are among the elite in college basketball. Most people would say that Duke's players have high basketball IQs. I'm pretty sure practicing some form of a zone or different defense would not cause their games to suffer and might actually give them a lift, as in a breath of fresh air. Even if you only the use defense a couple of minutes a game.

I think this discussion has come down to people saying that Coach K is willing gamble, giving up easy baskets and bad match-ups in favor of pressuring the ball and passing lanes, looking for steals and turnovers. Doesn't matter if its not working short term, cause obviously it works long term (record and winning percentage). Kind of like if you can get the ball inside the circle (passing up the 3), past the pressure, and if we don't block the shot, you can have the bucket. It just seemed last year that this philosophy was put to the test. Its got to be demoralizing to young payers to get beat on consective plays, giving up easy baskets and to be told to hold the line. Reminds me of the british armies of old, firing in lines no matter the battlefield. Guys falling all around and the Captain is yelling at the line to hold.

dukie8
08-28-2007, 10:31 PM
What a lot of the individuals who are arguing for zone defense to be taught are forgetting is Duke didn't have a snowballs chance in hell last season to win the NC. So what's a few hard losses in season A if it brings success in season B from learning to correct the mistakes from season A?

Someone just mentioned that M2M works great when Coach K and Duke have 3-4 year players on the team. Well take last year as a step in that direction. Sure,we took our lumps. But these are the lumps of learning by fire. Coach is getting these players up to speed in the Duke system and if past results are any measure at all I expect Duke to really rebound and show the rewards for sticking to their "principles".

Everyone seems to want perfection every game out. Not going to happen.

you appear to be new to these boards. late last december, there were a lot of people on here already figuring out where the next final 4 banner should be placed. it's very revisionist to argue now that duke had no shot at a nc last year because that hardly was the sentiment around here last christmas. those that posted on here that the team looked awful, despite continuing to win ugly, and better shape up come acc play, were crucified.

greybeard
08-28-2007, 10:48 PM
I agree with this post 100%. Duke was the best defensive team in the nation in November and December, but anyone who was paying attention saw the defense slide as the opponents got tougher. There's just no denying that. And if our defense was so good, it wouldn't have disappeared at the most important time of the season, our last two reg. season games against our biggest rivals, the ACC Tourney, and the NCAA tourney.


I'm not going to start a Paulus-bashing rant here, but I think there were times last year where Krzyzewski's man defense struggled because Paulus, for whatever reason you want to use, was incapable of guarding the other team's PG. Now, you then have to move Paulus off the ball and put Nelson or Scheyer (good defenders but much bigger than PGs) on the ball, creating what may only be a very slight mismatch, but a mismatch nonetheless. This cost us the Marquette game in the beginning of the year and cost us the VCU game, our last game of the year. Dominic James for Marquette had 25 points, 7 assists by getting to the middle of the floor at will; Eric Maynor for VCU had 22 points and 8 assists in similar fashion.

Eric Maynor was being guarded by Scheyer towards the end of that VCU game (including the game winner) and that slight mismatch was exposed. This does not mean Scheyer is a bad defender; he's a very good defender. But he's not made to guard 6-2 PGs; that should be Greg's job. This is another reason I feel it's going to be damn near impossible for Krzyzewski to keep Nolan Smith off the floor this year. Smith, from watching his HS games, embodies Duke defense, plain and simple.

1. The defense was best during the first part of the season when Paulus' physical difficulties were worst, and plainly prevented him from competing meaningfully, according to his standards, at either end.

2. K's on ball exterior defense was McClure. He stayed on the ball on the exterior for entire possessions--switching off his player if his player handed off, or staying with if he didn't. This was no striaght man-to-man. I never saw anything quite like it ever and I've been watching ball a long, long time.

3. The defense weakened when McRob did and when the offense failed to close in several very close early games. If you can't close, the ability to make key stops diminishes, because the pressure on the other guys to score the ball isn't there, they devote more energy to going forward (sorry for the soccer reference) and the defenders start to think in terms of futility.

4. K works on many variations of his defense, which has different zone and man principles, nuances mixed in. The development of players and their understanding for the flow of the game does not know two ends of the court and a middle but is of one piece. K develops men who not only can play the game but get smarter at it. He is a terrific facilitator of learning about the game and about how to succeed both as an individual and as part of a team.

All this is subject to the qualification that it is just my opinion. Disagreements are welcome.

ACCBBallFan
08-29-2007, 03:12 PM
Sigh-- haven't we had this discussion about a million times?

K believes that you succeed best in games by repeatedly doing things in practice. So, his teams play man-to-man all the time in practice. Obviously, they learn different aspects of man-to-man (as other posters have so adroitly explained elsewhere in this thread) but, from what I hear, they almost never practice any zone because K wants the man-to-man to be as good as it can be (and it has been quite good over the years). He feels that if they spent time practicing something else, it would detract from their success when they play man-to-man.

I have to admit, this seems like a reasonable theory. Practice it so you get as good at it as you can. Taking on another completely different defense would seem to hinder your ability to get great at either type of D. I also think it worth noting that the key to man-to-man is the help D when your man gets beat. That is the aspect that requires nearly endless practice to be great at.

-Jason "talk about counterproductive arguments-- like K is going to change his whole defensive philosophy after 30+ years of unparalleled success" Evans
After 5 pages, we get to a point that is pertinent to this coming season.

While Duke defense with Nelson-Scheyer-Paulus in back court is sometimes porous against quick guards who penetrate, this year they practice every day against Nolan-Marty-Henderson and will improve their technique against truly good and quick guards.

Last year with no true PG on the practice team, and Marty often injured, Duke was not truly simulating what they would face in ACC and NCAA competition.

I also think Paulus being selected to attend the premier PG camp will pay dividends as will the camp Henderson attended and the U-19 experience Scheyer and Nelson garnered, prior to Demarcus' injury.

I attribute Duke's defensive problems from second MD game on last year to a combination of things, team under confidence/ lack of seniority, Paulus and McClure injuries, Scheyer wearing out at end of season and Nelson at end of games, Josh having to be too cautious to not foul with no post backup, and a probably team chemistry issue which led to poor communication on defensive end that would minimize effectiveness of zone or M-2-M.

This year Duke will again be primarily a man to man defense that employs some zone principles, but can practice against better competition every day.

SilkyJ
08-29-2007, 04:50 PM
While Duke defense with Nelson-Scheyer-Paulus in back court is sometimes porous against quick guards who penetrate, this year they practice every day against Nolan-Marty-Henderson and will improve their technique against truly good and quick guards.

Last year with no true PG on the practice team, and Marty often injured, Duke was not truly simulating what they would face in ACC and NCAA competition.


Wow. Hadn't even thought of that or heard that mentioned anywhere. Thats a great point. We'll see if it holds up, but clearly these guys practice (too?) hard so I think there's a chance you could be right.



I also think Paulus being selected to attend the premier PG camp will pay dividends as will the camp Henderson attended and the U-19 experience Scheyer and Nelson garnered, prior to Demarcus' injury.

Don't forget Scheyer also attended one of the nike skills camp (Vince Carter's?)

greybeard
08-30-2007, 08:45 AM
Wow. Hadn't even thought of that or heard that mentioned anywhere. Thats a great point. We'll see if it holds up, but clearly these guys practice (too?) hard so I think there's a chance you could be right.



Don't forget Scheyer also attended one of the nike skills camp (Vince Carter's?)

But did any of them attend soccer camp.

Seems Amare Stoudamaire did. Yeap, following the lead of teammates Nash and Barbosa, Amare chose to train for this year's International competition, not by shooting more jumpshots, doing dribbling drills, etc; rather, he played soccer. Not having a bad tourney either. See article in Today's Washington Post.