PDA

View Full Version : Duke Defense



Indoor66
02-04-2009, 10:19 AM
In an article from the Charleston Post and Courier about the Clemson game linked (http://www.charleston.net/news/2009/feb/04/tigers_take_on_dukes_stingy_d70532/) there was a very clear explanation of the Duke defensive scheme and why it was effective. Reading this it is also clear why the complaints by some about players getting beat off the dribble is ascribing the error to the wrong player. The help defense requires the help!

Quoting a portion of the article:

Clemson assistant coach Ron Bradley, who specialized in defensive schemes, said Duke lives off its on-the-line and up-the-line defensive schemes.

Duke pressures the ball, and more specifically the passing lanes, as much as any team in the country.

"It is really the pressure they put on passing lanes that makes them so good defensively,'' Bradley said.
Take Duke's on-the-line, man-to-man defense.

To explain the jargon, imagine a straight line — a passing lane — running from Clemson's Demontez Stitt at the point to Rivers on the wing. Guarding Rivers is Duke's Gerald Henderson. He will often have part of his body in the passing lane, or on-the-line, and will close out on Rivers, meaning his chest will be facing Rivers' chest.

Such pressure makes life difficult on the perimeter.
Clemson guard Terrence Oglesby refers to it as overplaying, and Duke does it to an extreme. That is why the Blue Devils are second in the ACC in steals per game (9.2) and explains why the athletic Henderson is averaging an ACC-best 2.6 steals per game in conference play.

By aggressively hovering over passing lanes, Duke is vulnerable to back-door movement, and open lanes for offensive rebounds, but Oglesby said the Blue Devils are adept at covering breakdowns.

"They are so disciplined when it comes to their rotations,'' Oglesby said. "If they do get beat backdoor there's always a next person, they're always in correct position. They are so crisp in everything they do. Every one of their kids is an extremely intelligent player.

Thoughts or comments?

jjasper0729
02-04-2009, 10:41 AM
"They are so disciplined when it comes to their rotations,'' Oglesby said. "If they do get beat backdoor there's always a next person, they're always in correct position. They are so crisp in everything they do. Every one of their kids is an extremely intelligent player.

unless it's the last 2.8 seconds at LJVMC and everyone loses sight of a Deacon breaking to the basket for the game winning layup

CDu
02-04-2009, 11:00 AM
In an article from the Charleston Post and Courier about the Clemson game linked (http://www.charleston.net/news/2009/feb/04/tigers_take_on_dukes_stingy_d70532/) there was a very clear explanation of the Duke defensive scheme and why it was effective. Reading this it is also clear why the complaints by some about players getting beat off the dribble is ascribing the error to the wrong player. The help defense requires the help!

Quoting a portion of the article:

Clemson assistant coach Ron Bradley, who specialized in defensive schemes, said Duke lives off its on-the-line and up-the-line defensive schemes.

Duke pressures the ball, and more specifically the passing lanes, as much as any team in the country.

"It is really the pressure they put on passing lanes that makes them so good defensively,'' Bradley said.
Take Duke's on-the-line, man-to-man defense.

To explain the jargon, imagine a straight line — a passing lane — running from Clemson's Demontez Stitt at the point to Rivers on the wing. Guarding Rivers is Duke's Gerald Henderson. He will often have part of his body in the passing lane, or on-the-line, and will close out on Rivers, meaning his chest will be facing Rivers' chest.

Such pressure makes life difficult on the perimeter.
Clemson guard Terrence Oglesby refers to it as overplaying, and Duke does it to an extreme. That is why the Blue Devils are second in the ACC in steals per game (9.2) and explains why the athletic Henderson is averaging an ACC-best 2.6 steals per game in conference play.

By aggressively hovering over passing lanes, Duke is vulnerable to back-door movement, and open lanes for offensive rebounds, but Oglesby said the Blue Devils are adept at covering breakdowns.

"They are so disciplined when it comes to their rotations,'' Oglesby said. "If they do get beat backdoor there's always a next person, they're always in correct position. They are so crisp in everything they do. Every one of their kids is an extremely intelligent player.

Thoughts or comments?

There's an important difference between getting beaten back-door (as is referenced in the article) and getting beaten off the dribble.

Getting beaten back door is a calculated gamble. You take the chance that the overplay of the passing lane will result in a steal and breakaway layup/dunk. The correspoding risk is the backdoor cut. In that scenario, it's not the "fault" of the perimeter defender, but merely a function of the approach. The help defense is then supposed to come over and provide help.

Getting beaten off the dribble is a much different animal. In this scenario, you're guarding the ball, and the guy with the ball gets by you. In pretty much any circumstance, that is a failure of the on-the-ball defender, as you've now given the offense an advantage and are effectively guarding no one. You are correct that it is now the help defender's job to help. And if the help defense does not rotate properly, it is ALSO their fault. But fault still lies with the perimeter defender who could not stay in front of his man.

The common misconception is that it's okay for the on-ball defender to be beaten off the dribble because the help defense should help. This is not true. The fact that Duke plays great help defense does mitigate some of the downside of being beaten off the dribble, but it doesn't make it okay to be beaten off the dribble. Being beaten off the dribble exposes the underbelly of the defense and requires you to effectively play 4-on-5 or 4.5-on-5, as the man beaten is then either chasing the ball or trying to find someone to switch to in the progression. A good ballhandler should make even the best help defense pay for such a mistake with either a shot of his own or an open look for a teammate who is freed by the scrambling rotation.

roywhite
02-04-2009, 11:11 AM
Good explanation, CDu, and probably the #1 reason why Nolan Smith is starting over Greg Paulus.

CDu
02-04-2009, 11:12 AM
Good explanation, CDu, and probably the #1 reason why Nolan Smith is starting over Greg Paulus.

Thanks, and I agree about the reason for Smith v Paulus in the starting lineup.

pfrduke
02-04-2009, 11:29 AM
There's an important difference between getting beaten back-door (as is referenced in the article) and getting beaten off the dribble.

Getting beaten back door is a calculated gamble. You take the chance that the overplay of the passing lane will result in a steal and breakaway layup/dunk. The correspoding risk is the backdoor cut. In that scenario, it's not the "fault" of the perimeter defender, but merely a function of the approach. The help defense is then supposed to come over and provide help.

Getting beaten off the dribble is a much different animal. In this scenario, you're guarding the ball, and the guy with the ball gets by you. In pretty much any circumstance, that is a failure of the on-the-ball defender, as you've now given the offense an advantage and are effectively guarding no one. You are correct that it is now the help defender's job to help. And if the help defense does not rotate properly, it is ALSO their fault. But fault still lies with the perimeter defender who could not stay in front of his man.

The common misconception is that it's okay for the on-ball defender to be beaten off the dribble because the help defense should help. This is not true. The fact that Duke plays great help defense does mitigate some of the downside of being beaten off the dribble, but it doesn't make it okay to be beaten off the dribble. Being beaten off the dribble exposes the underbelly of the defense and requires you to effectively play 4-on-5 or 4.5-on-5, as the man beaten is then either chasing the ball or trying to find someone to switch to in the progression. A good ballhandler should make even the best help defense pay for such a mistake with either a shot of his own or an open look for a teammate who is freed by the scrambling rotation.

Yes and no. There are degrees to which a defense sacrifices ability to not get beaten off the dribble for other things. Take, for example, a traditional Wisconsin defense (though not necessarily this year's). They play a man-to-man that does not extend very far, if at all, past the three point line. The on-ball defender is usually off his man by a step or two so that he can react more easily to a drive and make it more difficult for the guy to penetrate. What that sacrifices is ball pressure on the pass, and (to a lesser extent) on the jump shot.

Duke plays man-to-man with the on ball defender right up in the grille of the ball handler. This is part of Duke's pressure on passes - not only do we try to cut off passing lanes with the off-ball defender, we want to make it more difficult for the ball handler to make passes, both entry passes and passes around the perimeter. It also means that it's rare to see guys take pull-up threes off the dribble against Duke, because there's no cushion for them to shoot it. But the consequence of playing up so tight is that it is easier to get beaten off the dribble. If you get one step on a guy who's right up on you, you're past him, whereas if they defender is not playing with such tight pressure, one step won't be enough.

Now, Duke's at its best when we have perimeter defenders who can fully sell out on playing up tight and still stop guys from getting that first step in penetration. We have a few of those this year, and it's one of the reasons the defense has been so strong. But I think there's an understanding that our extreme pressure on the perimeter does make it more likely that guys will get beat off the dribble, and that's where the help and rotation comes in. On balance, we accept the risk of dribble penetration that comes with the benefits of denying easy passes and easy perimeter shots.

I agree with you that it's not "okay" for a defender to get beaten off the dribble, and that it's the defender's job to play very tight and stop penetration. But I think part of our defensive scheme is structured around a recognition that we are more exposed to dribble penetration than other styles of defense, and need to have high quality rotation and help in place to prevent that from hurting us as much as possible.

CDu
02-04-2009, 11:58 AM
Yes and no. There are degrees to which a defense sacrifices ability to not get beaten off the dribble for other things. Take, for example, a traditional Wisconsin defense (though not necessarily this year's). They play a man-to-man that does not extend very far, if at all, past the three point line. The on-ball defender is usually off his man by a step or two so that he can react more easily to a drive and make it more difficult for the guy to penetrate. What that sacrifices is ball pressure on the pass, and (to a lesser extent) on the jump shot.

Duke plays man-to-man with the on ball defender right up in the grille of the ball handler. This is part of Duke's pressure on passes - not only do we try to cut off passing lanes with the off-ball defender, we want to make it more difficult for the ball handler to make passes, both entry passes and passes around the perimeter. It also means that it's rare to see guys take pull-up threes off the dribble against Duke, because there's no cushion for them to shoot it. But the consequence of playing up so tight is that it is easier to get beaten off the dribble. If you get one step on a guy who's right up on you, you're past him, whereas if they defender is not playing with such tight pressure, one step won't be enough.

Now, Duke's at its best when we have perimeter defenders who can fully sell out on playing up tight and still stop guys from getting that first step in penetration. We have a few of those this year, and it's one of the reasons the defense has been so strong. But I think there's an understanding that our extreme pressure on the perimeter does make it more likely that guys will get beat off the dribble, and that's where the help and rotation comes in. On balance, we accept the risk of dribble penetration that comes with the benefits of denying easy passes and easy perimeter shots.

I agree with you that it's not "okay" for a defender to get beaten off the dribble, and that it's the defender's job to play very tight and stop penetration. But I think part of our defensive scheme is structured around a recognition that we are more exposed to dribble penetration than other styles of defense, and need to have high quality rotation and help in place to prevent that from hurting us as much as possible.

I don't disagree with anything you said, and your seeming disagreement is probably more to do with my poor wording than any actual disagreement. Our defense is designed to put more pressure on the ball on the perimeter, which makes in turn it more difficult to stay in front of your man. However, as we both state, that doesn't make it "okay" for the perimeter guy to be beaten off the dribble. It still puts added strain on the defense. My point was it's wrong to absolve the perimeter guy of blame for being beaten off the dribble. The help defense is a safety valve that would preferably not be necessary - it's Plan B.

To further both our discussions, you ideally have defenders who are capable of pressuring the ball to prevent easy passes or easy shots AND staying with their man to prevent dribble penetration. We've had many examples of that over the years. Weaker defenders can either do one or the other (or neither in the extreme worst case), but by doing one they increase the risk of the other. In Duke's case we usually defer to pressure the ball/shot, which increases the likelihood of getting beaten off the dribble.

Ideally, getting beaten off the dribble doesn't happen, and when it does it is still the fault of the perimeter defender regardless of scheme. Our defense happens to be designed such that we have safety nets in place, and if the help doesn't come it is also the fault of the help defender.

bird
02-04-2009, 12:28 PM
Re defending the passing lanes, the catch phrase I have heard often describing the Duke philosophy is "ball you man."

In addition, this year I have particularly noticed Duke defenders frequently setting up on the upcourt side of the offensive player, both when applying ball pressure on the perimeter and in set pieces. It's almost as if we are inviting a cut to the basket or a drive. Maybe the situations I have been seeing are based on scouting reports that indicate that the offensive player has a particular tendency (needing to drive with the left hand, a reluctance to drive, etc.) that makes the approach a reasonable gamble.

I recall in the Shane Battier days when Shane would play a one-man zone the perimeter guys would go to ridiculous extremes to get into the passing lanes, to jam the dribbler, and to attempt steals. He was such a good help defender (probably the best in my Duke years, although Grant was up there too) everyone else had a license to gamble like mad, at least when Shane was in playing his zone or defending a player he could cheat off of. Shane was interesting in that contrary to other Duke teams our best defender often would not match up with the best offensive threat, but rather the weakest threat, to enable his "running around and doing things" approach to defense.

I am not sure who the great help side defender is on this team, McClure maybe? I sense that this team is particularly good at help defense, but we are overlooking it a bit due to the lack of an individual help-defense "star" like Battier. I can recall individual situations were Nolan, Kyle, and Henderson and even Paulus have provided great help defense.

All that being said, because of Duke's reliance on help defense to make up for vulnerability to drives and cuts, Duke historically is particularly vulnerable to the quick guard who can penetrate and dish. Makes me worried about Lawson. Also may help explain Nolan starting as well. It is not just that getting beat off the dribble is bad even when you have good help defense, but it is particularly bad in the Duke scheme when it is a playmaking guard getting into the lane. When help is triggered, somebody's open.

Saratoga2
02-04-2009, 12:40 PM
I agree with you that McClure is a good help side defender as is Singler. On the other hand, I think Thomas is not a particularly good help side defender and when he is in the game we give up a lot of direct penetrations to the basket. Zoubek is slower, but his size often deters penetration from getting directly to the basket.

dukeENG2003
02-04-2009, 01:31 PM
Scheyer is also a FABULOUS helpside defender. Very crafty.

pfrduke
02-04-2009, 01:50 PM
I don't disagree with anything you said, and your seeming disagreement is probably more to do with my poor wording than any actual disagreement. Our defense is designed to put more pressure on the ball on the perimeter, which makes in turn it more difficult to stay in front of your man. However, as we both state, that doesn't make it "okay" for the perimeter guy to be beaten off the dribble. It still puts added strain on the defense. My point was it's wrong to absolve the perimeter guy of blame for being beaten off the dribble. The help defense is a safety valve that would preferably not be necessary - it's Plan B.

To further both our discussions, you ideally have defenders who are capable of pressuring the ball to prevent easy passes or easy shots AND staying with their man to prevent dribble penetration. We've had many examples of that over the years. Weaker defenders can either do one or the other (or neither in the extreme worst case), but by doing one they increase the risk of the other. In Duke's case we usually defer to pressure the ball/shot, which increases the likelihood of getting beaten off the dribble.

Ideally, getting beaten off the dribble doesn't happen, and when it does it is still the fault of the perimeter defender regardless of scheme. Our defense happens to be designed such that we have safety nets in place, and if the help doesn't come it is also the fault of the help defender.

Yeah, I agree. I think the one extra point I would make, though, is to specify what fault lies where. Getting beat of the dribble is the exclusive fault of the guy guarding the ball handler. To the extent that results in a score, the defense shares collective "fault," because there are mechanisms in place to stop the penetration from resulting in points.

And obviously, "fault" doesn't mean that every time an opponent scores, the defense screws up - the offense makes plays against properly run defense that result in points (we just hope not many).

Jumbo
02-04-2009, 01:51 PM
It's a good article. At the same, time, it's somewhat amusing that an article on defense doesn't even mention Duke's two best defenders -- McClure and Scheyer. To be fair, I don't expect Clemson's beat writer to have that kind of understanding of Duke's personnel, although I'm surprised Pernell wouldn't have singled them out. But it's odd that he chose to focus on Thomas and Henderson.

tbyers11
02-04-2009, 02:00 PM
I recall in the Shane Battier days when Shane would play a one-man zone the perimeter guys would go to ridiculous extremes to get into the passing lanes, to jam the dribbler, and to attempt steals. He was such a good help defender (probably the best in my Duke years, although Grant was up there too) everyone else had a license to gamble like mad, at least when Shane was in playing his zone or defending a player he could cheat off of. Shane was interesting in that contrary to other Duke teams our best defender often would not match up with the best offensive threat, but rather the weakest threat, to enable his "running around and doing things" approach to defense.



Watching Shane play defense in person his first two years (my last two years at Duke) was amazing. He is a very good on ball defender, but (as the above poster mentioned) his help defense was some of the best that I have ever seen. It is sometimes hard to get a feel for help defense watching on TV. In person you can see the communication and the awareness of everything (the ball-you-man philosophy) going on to really get a feel for good team defense. Duke generally is very good at this but Shane was at another level.

/waxing poetic

bird
02-04-2009, 02:27 PM
Watching Shane play defense in person his first two years (my last two years at Duke) was amazing. He is a very good on ball defender, but (as the above poster mentioned) his help defense was some of the best that I have ever seen. It is sometimes hard to get a feel for help defense watching on TV. In person you can see the communication and the awareness of everything (the ball-you-man philosophy) going on to really get a feel for good team defense. Duke generally is very good at this but Shane was at another level.

/waxing poetic

I'll confessed I almost teared up thinking about what a great, great basketball player Battier was at Duke.