PDA

View Full Version : Bad D pressure



gumbomoop
03-16-2015, 11:50 PM
Importing these 2 tag quotes from "Okafor Not Right?" thread:


No one defense is the answer, but multiple defenses could be.


Your sentence here should absolutely be the focused topic of a thread, beginning no later than Monday, after we learn our seed, region, possible trail to Indy. Our trail will be derailed if our D is stagnant rather than vibrant.

IMO, Krzyzewski's D-planning is at least as important as is our guys' psychological readiness-to-play factor.

It's true, of course, that if our guys are lethargic, the best laid plans gang aft a-gley. Krzyzewski seemed to say as much in his comments after loss to ND. But lethargy must be much less the emotional/psychological danger now than unexpected confusion and sudden blows to confidence. As I just now heard K say on one of the many tourney shows, "Pressure is when you don't have the ability to do what's expected of you."

Duke has plenty of O-talent. They could hit a bad streak for some possessions. But more likely is a poor D-streak. If our D can't stop an opposing team -- including Friday's opponent -- for 5 or 6 consecutive possessions, that's trouble, pressure exactly in the sense K just characterized it. Even if K and the players right the ship, it's there, a reminder of bad D-stretches during the season. VT comes to mind.

I think, but am willing to be corrected, that a sort of consensus developed on EK re our applause when K used zone for substantial stretches of games. More delight when K mixed defenses. More still when he used several different zones in a game. More when he sprang a surprise press, deploying Amile to harass Heels, throw them off balance.

Does anyone think we are likely to make a deep run using only our traditional up-top close-m2m? Does K think so? Does anyone not think we need to use multiple D-looks? Does anyone not think Marshall can help vary our D-look, while giving Jahlil some rest and short-term protection against foul problems?

Finally, what would be the pluses and minuses of using Amile not only as a full-court harasser, but also, occasionally, at the top of a 3-2 zone?

Actually finally, our D needs to be vibrant, not stagnant.

Kedsy
03-17-2015, 12:11 AM
I think, but am willing to be corrected, that a sort of consensus developed on EK re our applause when K used zone for substantial stretches of games. More delight when K mixed defenses. More still when he used several different zones in a game. More when he sprang a surprise press, deploying Amile to harass Heels, throw them off balance.

Does anyone think we are likely to make a deep run using only our traditional up-top close-m2m? Does K think so? Does anyone not think we need to use multiple D-looks? Does anyone not think Marshall can help vary our D-look, while giving Jahlil some rest and short-term protection against foul problems?

Finally, what would be the pluses and minuses of using Amile not only as a full-court harasser, but also, occasionally, at the top of a 3-2 zone?

Actually finally, our D needs to be vibrant, not stagnant.

These are good points, good questions. My view is slightly different, though. What I think we need to do is surprise our opponent. Starting with Wisconsin (when we switched all screens, much to the Badgers' confusion), we have done something surprising on D in pretty much all our big games. The few games we didn't, we played poorly and/or lost. After the Miami loss, the Miami coaches and players all commented that they knew what Duke was going to do and so it was easy to exploit it.

So, at some point, if an opponent is expecting us to switch defenses, maybe we will go strict, "traditional" man-to-man, and so long as it confuses our opponents and knocks them off-balance just a little bit, then it will probably work. Whatever we do, it will be the surprise that is most important. IMO, anyway.

gumbomoop
03-17-2015, 12:33 AM
These are good points, good questions. My view is slightly different, though. What I think we need to do is surprise our opponent. Starting with Wisconsin (when we switched all screens, much to the Badgers' confusion), we have done something surprising on D in pretty much all our big games. The few games we didn't, we played poorly and/or lost. After the Miami loss, the Miami coaches and players all commented that they knew what Duke was going to do and so it was easy to exploit it.

So, at some point, if an opponent is expecting us to switch defenses, maybe we will go strict, "traditional" man-to-man, and so long as it confuses our opponents and knocks them off-balance just a little bit, then it will probably work. Whatever we do, it will be the surprise that is most important. IMO, anyway.

Ok, yes, your "surprise hypothesis" would seem an example of vibrant, not stagnant. I think we're both saying our D has to be effective, or at least not ineffective for multiple opponent possessions in a row. It doesn't have to wow, but it can't drag us down. As using zone and showing a variety of defenses did seem to constitute a surprise [pleasantly enough, to thousands on EK], to that extent we're saying close to the same thing. There is probably this subtle difference: mixed D is intended to surprise, but not all surprise D is multiple-mix.

I hope to see a vibrant, energetic team, on D every bit as much as on O. And, btw, for me, this means judicious use of Amile and Marshall on D, selective use of Grayson for O. Grayson is still enough of a surprise-factor to surprise unprepared opponents. Heaven knows he's not a stagnant kind of guy.

Kedsy
03-17-2015, 12:35 AM
Ok, yes, your "surprise hypothesis" would seem an example of vibrant, not stagnant. I think we're both saying our D has to be effective, or at least not ineffective for multiple opponent possessions in a row. It doesn't have to wow, but it can't drag us down. As using zone and showing a variety of defenses did seem to constitute a surprise [pleasantly enough, to thousands on EK], to that extent we're saying close to the same thing. There is probably this subtle difference: mixed D is intended to surprise, but not all surprise D is multiple-mix.

I hope to see a vibrant, energetic team, on D every bit as much as on O. And, btw, for me, this means judicious use of Amile and Marshall on D, selective use of Grayson for O. Grayson is still enough of a surprise-factor to surprise unprepared opponents. Heaven knows he's not a stagnant kind of guy.

I agree with all this, especially the bolded part.

Troublemaker
03-17-2015, 01:04 AM
I think we'll continue to see multiple defenses (but not necessarily multiple in a single game, as you guys have stated.)

The ACC tourney game against NCSU was a big tipoff that multiple is here to stay. A theretofore previously unseen extended matchup zone was whipped out for the Wolfpack and was obviously very effective. If Coach K was willing to spring that surprise, it makes sense that he'll continue to use zone when he feels it's appropriate and m2m when he feels that's appropriate. If Duke happens to lose a game somewhere along the line, though, us coach potato coaches will obviously second-guess whatever choice was made.

Even with Amile up top (which is an idea I like), I prefer the 3-2 zone to be a changeup rather than the main defense for any opponent because Jahlil can't get to the corners.

gumbomoop
03-17-2015, 01:21 AM
Even with Amile up top (which is an idea I like), I prefer the 3-2 zone to be a changeup rather than the main defense for any opponent because Jahlil can't get to the corners.

Changeup is good for 3-2. I'm thinking use it when Jahlil, Justise, and Quinn/Tyus are given short rest. So something like, Amile up top, Quinn and Matt flanking him, Marshall and Grayson on interior. When ball goes to corner, people slide to cover. Would Amile slide to near basket?

MCFinARL
03-17-2015, 08:54 AM
These are good points, good questions. My view is slightly different, though. What I think we need to do is surprise our opponent. Starting with Wisconsin (when we switched all screens, much to the Badgers' confusion), we have done something surprising on D in pretty much all our big games. The few games we didn't, we played poorly and/or lost. After the Miami loss, the Miami coaches and players all commented that they knew what Duke was going to do and so it was easy to exploit it.

So, at some point, if an opponent is expecting us to switch defenses, maybe we will go strict, "traditional" man-to-man, and so long as it confuses our opponents and knocks them off-balance just a little bit, then it will probably work. Whatever we do, it will be the surprise that is most important. IMO, anyway.

Agree that surprise has seemed to be a big factor, and the two ACC tournament games provide strong evidence--NC State was completely befuddled by Duke's defensive strategies, and it rattled them. Notre Dame was playing an opponent they were seeing for the third time, and thus were inevitably going to be much harder to surprise. Duke might still have won that game had they not, apparently, been in some altered sleepwalking state through the first half--but a rout of the proportions of the last game was never in the cards.

ikiru36
03-17-2015, 09:37 AM
I agree with all that was noted above, regarding the importance of our continuing to mix up defenses on occasion, including springing 3/4 court traps at opportune times.

However, my sense (and I'm glad to be backed up or refuted by advanced stats) is that when we've struggled on Defense it has primarily been when (repeatedly) caught in transition, as opposed to against our set defense in the front court. While there have been moments when teams have broken down our half court defense, these moments have been much rarer than last year (I think). But it seems like we give up a lot of points to other teams (at times) in transition and early offense after transition.

I also relate this to the oft repeated theory (even noted by Coach K, at least once this year) that we tend to struggle more on defense when our offense isn't producing points. While this has been discussed related to the team's focus/effort waning when frustrated about shots not falling, I suspect that it is at least as much due to the fact that failing to score is more apt to create transition opportunities for our opponents, than when they first have to take the ball out from the net.

Therefore, what I especially would like to see is a more sustained effort to get back in transition and as importantly, to locate and slow the ball while getting back so that our half-court defense can get set.

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

captmojo
03-17-2015, 09:45 AM
...unc against Notre Dame, last Saturday.

ND offensive set-up, first 32 minutes>o
ND offensive set-up, last 8 minutes>O
unc defensive set-up, all 40 minutes> o

COYS
03-17-2015, 10:36 AM
I also relate this to the oft repeated theory (even noted by Coach K, at least once this year) that we tend to struggle more on defense when our offense isn't producing points. While this has been discussed related to the team's focus/effort waning when frustrated about shots not falling, I suspect that it is at least as much due to the fact that failing to score is more apt to create transition opportunities for our opponents, than when they first have to take the ball out from the net.



I think this is a point that cannot be overemphasized when it comes to analyzing our defense. Our team defensive ability is unlikely to become super elite, all of a sudden. However, if you look at the Notre Dame game in the ACCT, we actually played well on the defensive end. Notre Dame got off to a fast start and got some layups early. But other than that, we held them below their average efficiency (would have been lower if we didn't need to foul at the very end to extend the game) and generally played well in the halfcourt. The issue in the first half is that we made a fair number of boneheaded live ball turnovers that resulted in easy buckets as well as missed a lot of shots that led to long rebounds and run-outs. Justise, in particular, had some really bad moments in the first half. I was disappointed to lose the game, to be sure, but I wasn't all that discouraged with our defense. It was our offense (or lack thereof in the first half) that really hurt us. Even with all those errors on offense, we STILL managed to mount an impressive comeback and make the Irish sweat it 'til the end. Turn three first half possessions on offense into shot attempts instead of turnovers and instead of being down 4 in the final minute, maybe we're tied and in a 50-50 game. Who knows?

Personally, I think there will be a game in the tournament when we just simply need to score and score efficiently. This has happened many times, even when Duke has had elite defenses (I'm thinking of the Baylor game in 2010 as an example). Putting the ball through the net and avoiding live ball turnovers will make it easier for us to set up one of our many half court or full court defensive schemes so we're more likely to get stops when we need 'em.

Troublemaker
03-17-2015, 01:08 PM
Changeup is good for 3-2. I'm thinking use it when Jahlil, Justise, and Quinn/Tyus are given short rest. So something like, Amile up top, Quinn and Matt flanking him, Marshall and Grayson on interior. When ball goes to corner, people slide to cover. Would Amile slide to near basket?

Sounds good to me, gumbo! And yes, the tip of the spear does turn inwards a lot when we play the 3-2.

DukieinSoCal
03-17-2015, 01:43 PM
I heard an interesting analysis on espn saying that our defense is not good enough to win 6 in a row because every team will have off shooting nights. They did say that our best game is better than Ky's best game but that's different from winning 6 in a row. I can definitely see the logic behind this argument. One thing that worries is my is our tendency to foul a lot when playing aggressive defense. Some of those fouls are smart and purposeful but it seems like we have been committing more useless fouls this year, ie bigs reaching pretty far away from the basket. Putting other teams in the bonus early might come back to haunt us in the tourney. It would be great if we could defend without fouling, like Wisconsin does. I don't know if we have the personnel to do that this year or if it's even something that our staff tries to make a point of emphasis but it would really help us in close games.

Troublemaker
03-17-2015, 01:58 PM
DukieInSocal, the best thing Duke's defense has done this year actually is to keep opponents off the free throw line. Wisconsin ranks 1st in the country at defensive FT Rate, so you are correct in praising them, but Duke ranks 6th in the country. So not too far behind.

Duke WAS over-aggressive on the perimeter against Notre Dame in the ACC Tourney, but that hasn't been the case most of the year.

I'd actually love to see Jahlil be more aggressive challenging shots inside.

DukieinSoCal
03-17-2015, 04:10 PM
Thanks for the stat, Troublemaker! I'm a bit surprised by it but glad it's the case. I guess it just seems like we have trouble getting stops without fouling in games that have been close or when we fall behind in the 2nd half. I'm sure my impressions have been skewed by particular games where it just seemed like we had no answers on defense. And considering the offensive firepower of several teams in our region, it's a bit of a concern. In any case, one game at a time.
Let's go, Duke!