Quick Thoughts

First, I will say that I thought Wojo should stick with his man to man, only because he should be working towards the future. I was wrong. Thank goodness he went to zone. However, I will also say that a Marquette team went to a zone a year too late. This is what Buzz should have done last year. When your offense and your defense is too complicated, you have to simplify your offense or defense. With that veteran team that we had, we really should have been a better team.

There are a couple of things that is really beneficial that we went to a zone. First of all, and most importantly, it's the time we spend on practice. Even a team like Syracuse only spends 15 minutes at the end of practice practicing their zone. If you play man to man, you have to do a lot more breakdowns drills on it. You spend half your practice working on your man to man. Now, more time is freed up to work on skills, and to work on our offense. Our offense is difficult to run, because it is based on reads. We do run a lot of sets also. The more time we spend running our offense, runnings breakdown drills for our offense, and working on skills, the higher our basketball IQ goes up. That in turn will help the man to man defense.

Second, why didn't we run zone against Wisconsin in the past? It's obvious that the Rodents have a tough time against a zone. They are a far more effective team against a man because they dictate what they want to do. Playing a 2-3 zone is so simple. People on the past have said that you can't just switch to a 2-3 and be effective. Well, what did we do this year? We switched to a 2-3 zone and we were effective immediately. It is not a tough defense to learn. Not a lot of practice time has to be spent on it.

We need Derrick Wilson this year. I know people are down on him because he is limited. I was hard on him too. Last year, I didn't think Derrick and Jake was a good combination. However, we have two guys on the wing that can score this year in Wilson and Carlino. Both of those guys are able to create their own offense. When guys like Burton or JJJ are in the game, they take shots that are not patient. Those shots lead to easy, transition opportunities on the other end. One of the most important jobs of the point guard, especially in a motion offense, is to control the tempo. They know when to play fast or play slow. There are multiple times when I wish Derrick would push the pace more, but he does calm down the team. Things aren't as frantic when he is in the game. Some want Duane Wilson to be the point guard, but we don't need him to worry about controlling the game. We don't need him to worry about running the offense. We don't need him to worry about setting up other people. We need him to score. In the meantime, he is learning the pace of the game, and is gaining experience. Let him learn right now, then start him at point guard next year. Duke does that all the time with point guards. Even a guy like Deiner played more shooting guard as a freshman, then he did as a point guard. In my opinion, that is an ideal situation.

I have seen a lot of people ripping on Juan Anderson. Not so much here, but on my social media feeds, hearing people talk, etc. Thank goodness we have Juan Anderson right now. That guy is giving 100% effort all the time. He's doing the stuff that no one wants to do. Imagine if we can get Burton or JJJ play as hard as Juan does. He's pulling down boards and he's guarding the post. Playing in the post is the most tiring thing to do because there is so much body contact. Derrick Wilson and Juan Anderson are giving us everything they have right now. They are setting the tone for the young guys to follow. Other coaches are admiring how hard we play. Derrick and Juan have bought into what Wojo is preaching. Do you think if Wojo would not have shown loyalty to those two guys that we would be getting the same type of effort that we are? Who of the young guys would be leading the way in showing the type of effort that we need to win and to keep improving? That's not a knock on the young guys. They just don't understand what it takes yet. Juan and Derrick do.

I can't want until Luke hits the floor with our guys. Now, more people can play their natural positions. Steve Taylor will not be the only true post. Now Juan can slide up a spot. Burton can slide up a spot. Luke won't be the savior, but he's going to help us a lot in the defense and the rebounding department.

Excellent post, again, Crisco!

As to Juan, man is he a vocal leader this year. Not just cheering, but getting into the grill and demanding. At one TO against UW, he went right up to Duane Wilson and was getting him to get charged up.

He also does the dirty work. I am going to like watching him play at the 3 now, as I think he could be really valuable during the remainder of the season.

I love Juan. Unfortunately, so many people simply look at a box score (points, specifically) to determine a players worth. Far more to it than that.

My only frustration with him is his hesitation to shoot. Everybody should play with confidence, especially a senior. He got the ball in a position to shoot it on Saturday and didn't, and instead the team had to settle for driving the ball which never worked well. Be confident, play confident!

First, I will say that I thought Wojo should stick with his man to man, only because he should be working towards the future. I was wrong.

Do you think Wojo eventually wants his teams to be a man to man base defense? I would think so just based on where he comes from. It will be interesting to see if/how he transitions to a man to man base defense next offseason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MUMac

Excellent post, again, Crisco!

As to Juan, man is he a vocal leader this year. Not just cheering, but getting into the grill and demanding. At one TO against UW, he went right up to Duane Wilson and was getting him to get charged up.

He also does the dirty work. I am going to like watching him play at the 3 now, as I think he could be really valuable during the remainder of the season.

---

Yes, Juan has really elevated his game this season doing the dirty work and grabbing rebounds. Only big negative has been his FT shooting when the game is tight. Gotta get the front end of those one-and-ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mucrisco

I have seen a lot of people ripping on Juan Anderson. Not so much here, but on my social media feeds, hearing people talk, etc. Thank goodness we have Juan Anderson right now. That guy is giving 100% effort all the time. He's doing the stuff that no one wants to do. Imagine if we can get Burton or JJJ play as hard as Juan does. .

---

Spot on. Also, Juan is the only guy that really gets after it on the glass. I hope Luke can add some intensity there as well. Because not only are we small, MU is passive as well. MU's offensive rebounding rate is horrible. Its difficult to win games (especially close games) when you're always one and done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RJax55

Spot on. Also, Juan is the only guy that really gets after it on the glass. I hope Luke can add some intensity there as well. Because not only are we small, MU is passive as well. MU's offensive rebounding rate is horrible. Its difficult to win games (especially close games) when you're always one and done.

---

Sandy Cohen was really tough on the boards in his minutes against UW. Even wrestled one away from Kaminsky and getting fouled in the process.

That was quick? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WindyCityGoldenEagle

First, I will say that I thought Wojo should stick with his man to man, only because he should be working towards the future. I was wrong.

Do you think Wojo eventually wants his teams to be a man to man base defense? I would think so just based on where he comes from. It will be interesting to see if/how he transitions to a man to man base defense next offseason.

---

I do. It's what he knows best. Not only that, but Wojo is a fiery personality. He wants to attack teams. You can do that with a pressure man to man defense.

Love that Wojo has gone outside of his comfort zone with the zone defense. I feel like young coaches are more willing to take risks and adjust, and many of them become more risk averse and too stubborn in their ways as they spend more time in the head chair (definitely feel like this was the case with Buzz). That often takes from the natural improvements made from coaching maturity.

I wish that Juan had two more years under Wojo. He has developed into the player I expected to see out of high school, and has tons of value as a versatile defender, rebounder, and secondary scorer that can hit open perimeter shots.

I think that Cohen can step into Juan's role, and has a much better perimeter shot at similar points of their careers. Glad that Wojo kept him on board, and believe he has a very bright future in the program. I hope that he remains in the playing rotation with Fischer back, even if that is at the expense of a couple of our sophomores.

Not surprised that Duane Wilson struggled Saturday given the circumstances, but damn has he looked like a future star on the whole. Not necessarily a pure point guard, but I believe that he will be capable of being the lead guard in this system (and could team with Noskowiak to form a dynamic scoring/shooting backcourt).

As long as Fischer is solid inside, I believe that we will be a better team then last year in conference. However, with the conference much improved, that may not translate into a better win-loss record. My realistic hope is going into New York with a top 6 seed in the Big East tournament and only having to win 3 games in 3 days for the auto bid. Even that may be an optimistic scenario, as there are no real dogs in the league (even DePaul seems competent this year so far).

I think that we should be a tourney team next year, and hopefully grow from there. Selfishly hoping for two years out of Henry Ellenson, as that team could be monstrous two years from now if everyone grows.

Crisco,

After seeing that his man-to-man defense was being shredded, Wojo made the right call going to zone. I know you still maintain it was a 2-3, but after starting with both guards on top of the arc, when the ball was passed to one side or the other, the weak side guard dropped top defend the high post area, which is classic 1-1-3. On almost every pass one of the two top defenders dropped like that creating the 1-1-3. Early in the game the off-ball guard did not drop and cover the high post - more of a straight 2-3, which is why we got burned there a few times when Hayes flashed to the free throw line.

Anyway, I agree that we should not be focused on the long term, but on winning games now. He can always switch to man when he has the personnel to make it work, whether that's next year or the following year, whenever. Of greater importance is building a winning culture, a mindset of winning rather than losing. Success breeds success.

I'm not sure I agree with you about only needing 15 minutes each practice to work on zone because the zone can be tweaked based on the opponent. Against Bucky, we automatically doubled the low post and the short corner. We had two because of Kaminsky and even Hayes, as well as Dekker. In other games we might not need to double down there, especially with Luke. Plus, if there are double teams, the double can come from different places, depending on the rest of the opponent's line up. Maybe Boeheim never changed his rotations. I don't know.

As far as why we didn't zone UW in the past, most of the time we had superior athletes who were able to stay in front of their man and keep UW's guards and wings from penetrating. Plus, UW almost always had a guy like Brust who could just kill a zone. Gasser, Jackson, and Koenig can all shoot the trey, but none of them is a Brust.

Plus we needed to counter their incredible height advantage. Playing Kaminsky and Hayes and Dekker straight up man would have been very difficult, especially with all the off-ball picks Bo employs. UW always has a slew of bigs, but both Hayes and Kaminsky can score down low. In the past many of UW's bigs were not as potent around the hoop.

Phantom,

The 15 minutes of practice comes straight from Jim Boeheim himself. Disagree with that guy. When he talks at clinics, he's always says that people ask him to talk about his 2-3 zone, but his teams really spend the majority of the time on man to man defense because other teams play them man to man. But they don't have to focus on their man to man which allows them to focus on their offense. They only allocate 15 minutes of time to the 2-3 defense at every practice because it's not a complicated defense. Sure, you can tweak it, but it does not take a lot of time to tweak it. If you run a man to man defense, there are multitudes of breakdown drills that you have to do. You have to practice jumping to the ball, bumping cutters, how you defend post to post cross screens, how you defend a ball screen on the sideline going baseline, on the sideline going middle, from the top of the key going sideline, from the top of the key going middle. You have to practice one pass away or two passes. You have to practice if you push the ball middle or if you push it sideline and baseline. You have to practice where you help comes from, then where you rotate to help the helper. You have to practice how you rotate after a double team or after the everyone rotated. It takes a long time to work on your man to man defense. Those are all breakdown drills. Then Wojo breaks those down into 1 man shell drills, and builds it up to 2 man, 3 man, then 4 man. On the flip side, the master of the zone, Jim Boeheim, spends 15 minutes of practice working on it. Even if you don't believe that, you can see how much more time it takes to send on your man to man than zone.

I'm familiar with the 1-1-3. It was the defense that I learned under Terri Mitchell, who is considered to be one of the best defensive coaches in the women's game. However, I disagree with you on a 2-3 zone, the off guard better be covering the elbow. That's the spot that kills any zone.

What is the advantage of a 2/3 versus a 1-1-3. Correct me if I'm wrong but the most vulnerable spots against a 2/3 are the L spot and the short corner. The 1-1-3 covers both of these pretty effectively. The biggest weakness for a 1-1-3 in comparison to the 2/3 seems to be the skip pass - high post sealing free throw line defender and getting a quick ball reversal from the skip. Ive never really looked into a 1-1-3 but the more I evaluate, it seems like a zone with less weaknesses. So why don't more teams play a 1-1-3 as opposed to a traditional 2/3?

I was introduced to the 1-1-3 three years ago. I have never liked a 2-3 zone, opting instead for a trapping 1-3-1 if/when I played zone. But I really like the 1-1-3.

Yep I'm really starting to fall in love with the 1-1-3. So am i missing something or is the biggest weakness in the 1-1-3 (in comparison to the 2-3) the skip pass to an open shooter? Seems like that's a weakness I could live with. Guess I just don't get what I'm missing as to why 2/3 is by far the primary zone defense played over 1-1-3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WindyCityGoldenEagle

What is the advantage of a 2/3 versus a 1-1-3. Correct me if I'm wrong but the most vulnerable spots against a 2/3 are the L spot and the short corner. The 1-1-3 covers both of these pretty effectively. The biggest weakness for a 1-1-3 in comparison to the 2/3 seems to be the skip pass - high post sealing free throw line defender and getting a quick ball reversal from the skip. Ive never really looked into a 1-1-3 but the more I evaluate, it seems like a zone with less weaknesses. So why don't more teams play a 1-1-3 as opposed to a traditional 2/3?

---

The primary difference between the two zones is the amount of preparation that you need to play a 1-1-3 vs a 2-3 zone. A 1-1-3 is more of a matchup zone. There are more man to man principles in it than a 2-3 zone would. You could matchup in a 2-3 zone, but it's more that you are covering a part of the floor. Put it this way. Many teams will attack a 1-1-3 zone with their man to man stuff.

Because you have more man to man principles in it, more time is spent on your 1-1-3. There are many ways to play your 1-1-3. For example, Ohio State's women's coach will tell you that anything below the FT line is the responsibility of the back line. Above the FT line is the guard's responsibility. Those concepts are much like the 2-3 zone. However, when it differs, is that let's say the bottom defender is picking up the ball on the wing, but it's still below the FT line but not by much. If the ball is then passed to the corner, then the defender in the middle has to go out and play that person. Then the defender that was guarding the wing either takes the center spot, or if that person is undersized, then the opposite both defender slides over to the bottom spot and the ball defender takes the opposite side.

The way Terri Mitchell played it, it is different. The top guard, who we will call the jammer, will force the ball handler one way so that the ball side/strong side is established. Then, the second guard, who Terri called the Rover, will shadow towards the weak side offensive guard. The strong side bottom defender, will shadow towards the strong side guard. It doesn't matter if the ball is above the FT line or not. If the ball is passed to the strong side, the bottom defender takes it. If it is passed to the weak side, the Rover takes it.

Skip passes are definitely a weakness, but they are in any zone. What is a huge weakness in the way that both is played is when the ball is passed to the wing, then it is passed to the corner, especially when there is a baseline runner. Like I said before, in the Ohio St scheme, the center bottom defender has to go out and play that. In Terri's case, if the ball is passed to the weak side, then the corner, those defenders are matched up already. However, if the ball is passed to the strong side, then there is a baseline runner, the rover has to go to and bump the bottom defender over so that they are able to cover the weak side. Doing things like that does take more practice time because it is a little more complicated, matching up like that. The advantage is that it is not a zone that many people play so that teams aren't used to playing it. Plus, you can mask what defense you are playing. It looks like a man to man, but it is really a zone. Also, you can double down on the post easily, because the Rover is already there.

If a team did play a 1-1-3 straight up, it would be easy to defeat it in the college games because the wings at the FT line extended are really exposed. Those are shots that people practice and people make. The tougher shot is in the corner. So, you don't mind giving up that corner has much. Plus, in a 1-1-3, it is easier to surprise a team and trap on the wings, in the corners, or even the pt guard when they cross the line.

For anyone out there interested in learning more about the 1-1-3, especially anyone coaching a youth team, this is the site I explored first once the high school varsity coach introduced the defense to me three years ago.

We don't do the "drills," but the "movements" diagrams can be extremely helpful.

We respond a little differently when there are three players on the strong side perimeter, which usually includes a player in the corner.

I've come to the conclusion that you need the right personnel to implement this defense, which is probably true for any defense. With certain combinations of players on the court, we switch from a 1-1-3 to a 1-3-1.

What Crisco said about teams not usually having to play against a 1-1-3 is absolutely correct. And because it is a match-up zone and "shape shifts" at times, opposing players and coaches are often perplexed at how to attack it.

Anyway, here are the links to some of the info (click on upper right hand "Name" options.)

http://www.jes-soft.com/playbook/pla...ptrapping.html

http://www.jes-soft.com/playbook/pla...h-uprules.html

http://www.jes-soft.com/playbook/pla...uardmoves.html

http://www.jes-soft.com/playbook/pla...sidemoves.html

There are other sources people can find as well.

Enjoy the discussion guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goose85

Enjoy the discussion guys.

---

I second this! As a novice at coaching kids, these types of discussions always fascinate me!

In Phantom's 3rd link, that is how Terri plays the corner pass. The rover comes out and bumps the bottom defender down to cover the corner. When there is a baseline runner, you must have communication that there is a baseline cutter. That way, the Rover knows to bump the bottom defender down.

In Phantom's 4th link, that is how Ohio St will play it. When the ball is passed to the corner, the 5 goes out and plays that. Then, the 4 becomes the center defender. The problem is if your 4 is an undersized player. Picture if that was Derrick Wilson in that spot. Now, Derrick Wilson is playing post players. So, a way around that is to have the 3 slide over to cover the middle, then Derrick hustles back to the weak side.

All these things need to be practiced in breakdown drills. If you play a team that moves the ball well, and pretty much any college team or varsity high school team will do that, then you can see how quick two pass reversals can beat the zone. You will have an advantage on one side and 1 defender playing 2. You can overload a side or plays your man to man stuff, and unless you've put in a lot of practice time into those rotations, it's a tough zone to play. But if you like to change defenses and mask what you are doing, it's very effective.

That communication when there is a cutter down the base line - or rather lack of communication cost us a game in a recent tournament. We were up by 2 with about 12 seconds left playing our 1-1-3. The other team sent a cutter from one side to the other along the base line to the corner, but we didn't communicate. Our "3" had come out to defend the wing and no one communicated to our 5, so the cutter came through, she got the pass, and nailed a 15 footer to tie the game. (We lost in double overtime on a banked in trey.)

What was neat, though, was that after the girl made the tying basket, in the huddle before the first overtime, our girls were apologizing to each other for not communicating and saying they had to do a better job of talking. It was almost worth losing the game to see them discussing what went wrong and how to correct it on their own without any input from me. In the overtimes, the opponent did the same thing four or five times, but the girls did communicate, and we shut down the offense - until the desperation 22-foot bank shot from the top of the key.