PDA

View Full Version : A more modest proposal for defense



Eakane
01-07-2014, 10:53 AM
In my world, the sky is not falling. We're good and getting better. However, we continue to get burned on D at an alarming rate. After some progress, ND lookied like the Vermont game in a lot of ways. As the DBR front page noted, Notre Dame at times looked like they were running a lay up drill (loved the dunk city has gone catholic line). We're not going to go zone, but there are more than two options on defense. Indeed, there are more kinds of man to man defense. K plays ball-you-man MTM; high risk high reward. As a fan, I've always enjoyed watching Duke play this style of D, as ball-you-man is highly disruptive, leads to many steals and turnovers, and only ocassionally allows back door scores (at least half of them by Dean Smith-coached UNC).

But given this year's talent and defesnive liabilities, and given how often we've been burned by simple pick and rolls, back door cuts and even just motion, and given the new enforcement rules, would it make sense to adjust the D to ball-you-basket; like Jimmy V's State team in the '80s? Perhaps even a mix with the guards denying the pass and the interior denying the basket. I recognize that this "modest" adjustment would still require radically new training and it's already January, so even if it's a decent idea, it may be too late for this season and this year's team.

I'm not saying what Duke should do, and I'm not saying I know better than K; it's just a thought and I'd like to know your opinions.

DukeDevilDeb
01-07-2014, 12:07 PM
In my world, the sky is not falling. We're good and getting better. However, we continue to get burned on D at an alarming rate. After some progress, ND lookied like the Vermont game in a lot of ways. As the DBR front page noted, Notre Dame at times looked like they were running a lay up drill (loved the dunk city has gone catholic line). We're not going to go zone, but there are more than two options on defense. Indeed, there are more kinds of man to man defense. K plays ball-you-man MTM; high risk high reward. As a fan, I've always enjoyed watching Duke play this style of D, as ball-you-man is highly disruptive, leads to many steals and turnovers, and only ocassionally allows back door scores (at least half of them by Dean Smith-coached UNC).

But given this year's talent and defesnive liabilities, and given how often we've been burned by simple pick and rolls, back door cuts and even just motion, and given the new enforcement rules, would it make sense to adjust the D to ball-you-basket; like Jimmy V's State team in the '80s? Perhaps even a mix with the guards denying the pass and the interior denying the basket. I recognize that this "modest" adjustment would still require radically new training and it's already January, so even if it's a decent idea, it may be too late for this season and this year's team.

I'm not saying what Duke should do, and I'm not saying I know better than K; it's just a thought and I'd like to know your opinions.

I agree that we need to make some defensive changes. If our defensive play against Notre Dame was any indication of what's coming, we may be in trouble elsewhere in the ACC. You KNOW everyone will watch that tape and say, THE PAINT, THE PAINT, let's do it in THE PAINT.

As a loyal nearly 30 year Duke (and Coach K) fan, I wonder if a commitment to playing some zone is not the answer. I'm not trying to turn us into Syracuse this year; don't worry. Any previous forays into using zone have always been short, and other teams knew we'd be back in man to man soon. But it might give us an advantage in that it would be unexpected.

Thoughts? Go Devils!

superdave
01-07-2014, 12:37 PM
In our last 8 games, Duke has given up the following point totals: 64, 72, 69, 66, 63, 59, 48, 79. That is an average of 65 points per game. Duke went 6 and 2 over that stretch with a loss to top 5 Arizona and a loss in our first true road game. That 65 points per game is an improvement over our first 6 games where we gave up 75.6 points per. Assuming Duke improves a little over the next two months on the defensive end, why shake things up?

You need to look at the Notre Dame game in context of the defensive improvement we have shown since the Vermont game. You cannot look at one game and draw grand conclusions. You also cannot look at a group of kids that is a completely new group from the Seth/Mason/Ryan-led team last season and draw conclusions this early in the season. They are going to be a different team in March than in December. That's what gives me some assurance that Duke will improve defensively going forward. And if they don't, I'll be shocked (and our HOF coach will be too).

Finally, would you rather peak in December by beating Kansas and Arizona? Or would you rather the guys take a few lumps now, learn they have to play better team D and communicate better and peak in March?

Super "Relax" Dave

Matches
01-07-2014, 12:44 PM
My guess is that K would lump all the hybrid defenses (Triangle and 2, Box and 1, etc.) as "zone", which means we will not be seeing them for any extended period of time. I also think that so long as we emphasize switching, playing a hybrid of MTM and zone is basically impossible.

Any improvement we see over the remainder of the season is likely to come from guys developing a better understanding of, and facility with, K's existing principles. Fortunately, with a relatively young team (at least when TT and Josh are not on the floor), it's reasonable to believe that players will develop better understanding with two more months of practice and game experience.

jimrowe0
01-07-2014, 01:21 PM
I agree that we need to make some defensive changes. If our defensive play against Notre Dame was any indication of what's coming, we may be in trouble elsewhere in the ACC. You KNOW everyone will watch that tape and say, THE PAINT, THE PAINT, let's do it in THE PAINT.

As a loyal nearly 30 year Duke (and Coach K) fan, I wonder if a commitment to playing some zone is not the answer. I'm not trying to turn us into Syracuse this year; don't worry. Any previous forays into using zone have always been short, and other teams knew we'd be back in man to man soon. But it might give us an advantage in that it would be unexpected.

Thoughts? Go Devils!

With the new rules in place, I think it makes playing zone much more attractive. I would like to see us incorporate more zone and full court pressure.

Kedsy
01-07-2014, 01:36 PM
With the new rules in place, I think it makes playing zone much more attractive. I would like to see us incorporate more zone and full court pressure.

Other than fewer charges (and even those have been going up), it seems the new rules are already being relaxed. I wouldn't be surprised if it looked just like last year (other than the charges) by tournament time.

Eakane
01-07-2014, 01:46 PM
In our last 8 games, Duke has given up the following point totals: 64, 72, 69, 66, 63, 59, 48, 79. That is an average of 65 points per game. Duke went 6 and 2 over that stretch with a loss to top 5 Arizona and a loss in our first true road game. That 65 points per game is an improvement over our first 6 games where we gave up 75.6 points per. Assuming Duke improves a little over the next two months on the defensive end, why shake things up?

You need to look at the Notre Dame game in context of the defensive improvement we have shown since the Vermont game. You cannot look at one game and draw grand conclusions. You also cannot look at a group of kids that is a completely new group from the Seth/Mason/Ryan-led team last season and draw conclusions this early in the season. They are going to be a different team in March than in December. That's what gives me some assurance that Duke will improve defensively going forward. And if they don't, I'll be shocked (and our HOF coach will be too).

Finally, would you rather peak in December by beating Kansas and Arizona? Or would you rather the guys take a few lumps now, learn they have to play better team D and communicate better and peak in March?

Super "Relax" Dave

I don't mind losing to two top 5 teams in November, but losing to a team that was taken to overtime by Canisius and just lost its best player doesn't sit well with me; as I'm sure it doesn't with the team and coaches, and which I'm sure Georgia Tech will find out tonight.

I think it would be a mistake to go zone, or to a gimmicky defense like triangle and 2. I'm saying that perhaps it would be better, given Jabari and Hood's defensive deficiencies, for them to be guarding the basket more than trying to flood the passing lanes.

jv001
01-07-2014, 03:03 PM
Other than fewer charges (and even those have been going up), it seems the new rules are already being relaxed. I wouldn't be surprised if it looked just like last year (other than the charges) by tournament time.

A couple of games lately have looked just like last year already. Jabari has taken a beating lately. GoDuke!

TruBlu
01-07-2014, 04:10 PM
Try. playing. some.

flyingdutchdevil
01-07-2014, 04:16 PM
I don't mind losing to two top 5 teams in November, but losing to a team that was taken to overtime by Canisius and just lost its best player doesn't sit well with me; as I'm sure it doesn't with the team and coaches, and which I'm sure Georgia Tech will find out tonight.

I think it would be a mistake to go zone, or to a gimmicky defense like triangle and 2. I'm saying that perhaps it would be better, given Jabari and Hood's defensive deficiencies, for them to be guarding the basket more than trying to flood the passing lanes.

I agree with every single word here.

1) The ND game hurt. They aren't a good team. As a matter of fact, they'd be lucky to get into the tourney. If they get into the tourney, the Duke game will be a big reason why they got there.

2) Zone is a great type of defense, given the right players and the right coach. We have the right players for zone; we don't have the right coach. Coach K is many things, but a zone coach he is not. When was the last time we played more than 3 possessions of "Orange"? 2007? Coach K just needs to stick to his guns.

3) "Jabari and Hood's defensive deficiencies" may be an understatement at this point.