RU Nemesis: Zone Defenses

[BillyC80]

Starting with our early OOC games it was apparent that RU does not attack a zone well.

Yesterday I got a sinking feeling as soon as I saw Minny in a zone. I still thought we’d win, but figured it would be a struggle offensively.

I assume MN went zone to save their energy with a depleted bench, and it turned out to be the perfect antidote against us, along with their hot shooting from three.

 

[bethlehemfan]

Starting with our early OOC games it was apparent that RU does not attack a zone well.

Yesterday I got a sinking feeling as soon as I saw Minny in a zone. I still thought we’d win, but figured it would be a struggle offensively.

I assume MN went zone to save their energy with a depleted bench, and it turned out to be the perfect antidote against us, along with their hot shooting from three.

Problem wasn’t offense.

 

[hiwater]

Problem wasn’t offense.

It was for stretches of the game. As much as everyone complained about the D on Willis, I thought that it was pretty good. He hit most of his shots with a hand in his face. He was just on yesterday.

 

[BillyC80]

Problem wasn’t offense.

Only because Geo got hot from 3. Too many trips we settled for threes (we took 27 threes and Geo took 14 of them) because we weren’t attacking their zone.

 

[BillyC80]

It was for stretches of the game. As much as everyone complained about the D on Willis, I thought that it was pretty good. He hit most of his shots with a hand in his face. He was just on yesterday.

Exactly. A 6-minute drought and 17 minutes in cumulative scoring droughts is not gonna cut it.

 

[Plum Street]

It was for stretches of the game. As much as everyone complained about the D on Willis, I thought that it was pretty good. He hit most of his shots with a hand in his face. He was just on yesterday.

Agree . It happens. The minny guy was unstoppable . It happens.
The inability to make shots cost us .

 

[bethlehemfan]

Only because Geo got hot from 3. Too many trips we settled for threes (we took 27 threes and Geo took 14 of them) because we weren’t attacking their zone.

It was packed in. At some point you need to make shots.

 

[bethlehemfan]

It was for stretches of the game. As much as everyone complained about the D on Willis, I thought that it was pretty good. He hit most of his shots with a hand in his face. He was just on yesterday.

Our opponent shot 54%. Yes I give Willis credit but that’s not good defense.

 

[bac2therac]

6 minutes without a hoop from 7:30 to 1:30

 

[bethlehemfan]

6 minutes without a hoop from 7:30 to 1:30

Yep and 6 wide open 3’s.

 

[bac2therac]

Reiber no defense on the last 2 made by Minny that put them up 66-62

 

[Scarlet Blind_rivals]

Sometimes you just need to attack a zone with a drive and deliver an offense foul to the defender who steps in, eventually they'll stop. Passing the ball around the perimeter for 20-25 seconds and settle for a 3 is exactly what Minnesota wanted all game, 27 3pt attempts out of 54 FG attempts. It kept them fresh and in rhythm on offense to not have to exert much energy on defense. Willis and Loewe stayed fresh all game. Pikiell can tell them what to do, the players have to execute, only one willing to work was Paul against a zone. Congrats Geo you had a good game, but you barely made Minnesota work on defense for any of your 14 3pt attempts. Paul and Dean should have been your 2 zone breakers with Cliff and Agee, give the other 120 to Geo, Caleb, RHJ, Hyatt, Mag.

 

[Rutgers25]

If anything, we should have abused them on the glass for going zone. We did a little but not nearly enough. That’s where Cliff’s inability to finish and attach the offensive glass hurts.

 

[RUChoppin]

We struggled more offensively than defensively, imo.

The defense had lapses at times, and wasn't nearly as locked in or focused as it was against Iowa - but Minnesota put up some very well contested shots that went in. If a guy is splashing shots 8 feet behind the arc, you need to deny him the ball, especially when the rest of his team is largely being held together with duct tape and chewing gum... but he ended up his 4th highest shot total of his 5 year career, and his highest # of 3PA in a game.

The offense struggled against the zone, though, mainly through an inability to get touches/shots for Harper and Omoruyi in position to score.

Harper/Omoruyi are our #1/#2 scorers and averaged 10.2/20.1 (.507) and 27.6 pts coming into the game. Against Minnesota, they went 6/16 (.375) with 16 pts. And this was coming against a depleted Gopher squad, where we should have been able to get our best scorers more shots. But the zone stymied that, and we weren't able to solve it.

The other 5 guys pretty much hit their averages. Coming into the game, Mulcahy/McConnell/Hyatt/Mag/Reiber averaged 9.1/24.2 (.376) for 24.2 points. Against Minnesota, they went 10/21 (.476) for 24 points.

Our inability to get Harper and Omoruyi going was a failure of the offense, and it was largely due to a lazy "pass the ball around the perimeter" approach, where we were settling for shots Minny wanted us to take rather than working to pick apart their zone. This was also a starting five who have limited practice time together in a zone defense - so our struggles solving it are even more of an issue.

 

[zebnatto]

Problem wasn’t offense.

So many people want to point out the “reason” or the “problem.” Come on, there were many “reasons” or contributing factors as to why we lost the game, from the opening bell (the way we came out, putting us in a hole) to the final bell/ko (the last play to Ron). Too many “reasons” to name and really a change in any one of them would have won us the game.

 

[fluoxetine]

Only because Geo got hot from 3. Too many trips we settled for threes (we took 27 threes and Geo took 14 of them) because we weren’t attacking their zone.

It’s not “settling” when you get wide open threes.

 

[RU MAN]

Starting with our early OOC games it was apparent that RU does not attack a zone well.

Yesterday I got a sinking feeling as soon as I saw Minny in a zone. I still thought we’d win, but figured it would be a struggle offensively.

I assume MN went zone to save their energy with a depleted bench, and it turned out to be the perfect antidote against us, along with their hot shooting from three.

We struggled until Pike put Paul there, who IMO does a magnificent job of breaking the zone with his passes to the wings. I wish we cut more down low to the basket however. That's how you beat a zone too.

 

[RUChoppin]

It’s not “settling” when you get wide open threes.

If you just pass the ball around the perimeter without probing the defense at all, and then have McConnell/Hyatt/Mulcahy shoot partially-covered 3PA, that's settling to me - that shot will nearly always be there against a zone, so you need to first work for a better shot. Just shooting threes against a zone is putting no pressure on the defense at all, and doing exactly what they want you to do.

Minnesota's defense seemed predicated on keeping the ball out of the paint to make us a one-dimensional jump-shooting team, and covering Harper tightly enough that he'd give up the ball to someone else. They could live with Baker lighting it up if Harper was kept under his average, Omoruyi was kept out of the offense, and they could protect their 3 scorers from foul trouble.

Worked out great for them, as they held us to 65 points (we're 14-2 when scoring 70+, and 2-5 when scoring less than that) and held Harper to 12..... we're 2-6 when he scores fewer than 14.

 

[hiwater]

It’s not “settling” when you get wide open threes.

Agreed! I also think that we passed up too many more wide open 3's in in the shot clock before going back to attempting them a couple of steps deeper when the clock was running low.
Mulcahy and Harper where very hesitant to take the 3 open attempts for most of the game. I think that hesitation played into Harper being off later in the game. Hesitation plays into everyone's shooting mindset.

If there are any potential rebounders underneath, I want to see us take those shots even if there is a lot of time left on the shot clock. The next look is never as good

 

[LotusAggressor_rivals]

Zones are a problem when you don't have good outside shooters.

 

[fluoxetine]

that shot will nearly always be there against a zone, so you need to first work for a better shot. Just shooting threes against a zone is putting no pressure on the defense at all, and doing exactly what they want you to do.

Letting a team (even Rutgers) put up unlimited open threes, assuming they are from the players who can make them, is a bad defensive concept in 2022. If you can get wide open threes without doing any work, then there's no reason to do any work. I'm not saying we are like the epitome of offensive efficiency or something but the problem is absolutely, absolutely, absolutely NOT people taking too many threes. It is absolutely mandatory to take open threes.

 

[goru7]

If you just pass the ball around the perimeter without probing the defense at all, and then have McConnell/Hyatt/Mulcahy shoot partially-covered 3PA, that's settling to me - that shot will nearly always be there against a zone, so you need to first work for a better shot. Just shooting threes against a zone is putting no pressure on the defense at all, and doing exactly what they want you to do.

Minnesota's defense seemed predicated on keeping the ball out of the paint to make us a one-dimensional jump-shooting team, and covering Harper tightly enough that he'd give up the ball to someone else. They could live with Baker lighting it up if Harper was kept under his average, Omoruyi was kept out of the offense, and they could protect their 3 scorers from foul trouble.

Worked out great for them, as they held us to 65 points (we're 14-2 when scoring 70+, and 2-5 when scoring less than that) and held Harper to 12..... we're 2-6 when he scores fewer than 14.

Ok. But they also got double lucky. I agree they did not probe enough and cut down low against the zone or attack it , but but but , Ron who was on fire leading the Big 10 in 3 point shooting missed 2 wide open threes and then charged on the last possession. Lucky they were. On top of them hitting 13-24 from 3 with many contested , some from downtown , and many at the end of the shot clock.

 

[fluoxetine]

If they will let Geo take 55 wide open threes with 20 seconds left on the shot clock, he should jack up all of them. He should jack them up even if he's 2 for his last 20. He should jack them up even if it doesn't put "pressure" on the defense.

 

[BillyC80]

If they will let Geo take 55 wide open threes with 20 seconds left on the shot clock, he should jack up all of them. He should jack them up even if he's 2 for his last 20. He should jack them up even if it doesn't put "pressure" on the defense.

Please let Pikiell know this. Because Geo can get a step-back three that will be a wide open shot every time.

 

[fluoxetine]

Please let Pikiell know this. Because Geo can get a step-back three that will be a wide open shot every time.

Eh, I wouldn’t count those. They need to be open and in rhythm from a player who is reasonable able to hit them. Geo should launch every catch and shoot three all day. James Harden should launch the step backs , not Geo.

 

[RUChoppin]

If they will let Geo take 55 wide open threes with 20 seconds left on the shot clock, he should jack up all of them. He should jack them up even if he's 2 for his last 20. He should jack them up even if it doesn't put "pressure" on the defense.

If you let McConnell and Hyatt do that, though, you are at much lower risk as a defense.

Harper didn't get many open looks through most of the game - they were contesting him at the arc, because he was the biggest threat. McConnell taking an early-in-the-shot-clock three is settling, imo. He's shooting .222 this year, and .242 for his career at this distance.... even though he went 1/2 yesterday, he's not the guy you want taking threes. Hyatt's a career .258 shooter, and .257 this year.... again, not the guy you want taking threes if you have other options.

If you can get a look for Omoruyi or Hyatt near the rim, you'll score more points long term than getting looks for McConnell/Hyatt from 3.

I'm fine with Harper, Baker, and Mulcahy taking every open three they get - even just partially contested ones. That's not settling. But, no one else on this team has shown they can consistently shoot better than .290

 

[BillyC80]

Eh, I wouldn’t count those. They need to be open and in rhythm from a player who is reasonable able to hit them. Geo should launch every catch and shoot three all day. James Harden should launch the step backs , not Geo.

But I am counting those — among the ones where we’re settling. We’re also settling if we have to take the shot with a hand in our face, or with the shot clock winding down, or from 2 feet behind the arc with time on the shot clock, and maybe a few other situations.

Look, I love me some three-pointers, but when the other team is playing their starters 40 minutes each, you have to make an effort to wear them down and draw some fouls. We made no attempt to put any of them in foul trouble.

 

[RUSCFORMERLYRULOU]

If you let McConnell and Hyatt do that, though, you are at much lower risk as a defense.

Harper didn't get many open looks through most of the game - they were contesting him at the arc, because he was the biggest threat. McConnell taking an early-in-the-shot-clock three is settling, imo. He's shooting .222 this year, and .242 for his career at this distance.... even though he went 1/2 yesterday, he's not the guy you want taking threes. Hyatt's a career .258 shooter, and .257 this year.... again, not the guy you want taking threes if you have other options.

If you can get a look for Omoruyi or Hyatt near the rim, you'll score more points long term than getting looks for McConnell/Hyatt from 3.

I'm fine with Harper, Baker, and Mulcahy taking every open three they get - even just partially contested ones. That's not settling. But, no one else on this team has shown they can consistently shoot better than .290

I thought Pike said Hyatt was the best three point shooter on the team. Lok

 

[rucoe89]

Starting with our early OOC games it was apparent that RU does not attack a zone well.

Yesterday I got a sinking feeling as soon as I saw Minny in a zone. I still thought we’d win, but figured it would be a struggle offensively.

I assume MN went zone to save their energy with a depleted bench, and it turned out to be the perfect antidote against us, along with their hot shooting from three.

Not surprising at all. If a team isn’t a good outside shooting team this is a nice neutralizer. I am surprised more teams don’t use it against Rutgers. If Geo and Ron are neutralized the team is essentially toast In that situation. Unless Pikiell addresses the shooter situation in the off-season, I’d expect more teams to deploy this against Rutgers in the future. Games like Caldwell College and NJIT could end up being challenges or even losses.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

...Passing the ball around the perimeter for 20-25 seconds and settle for a 3 is exactly what Minnesota wanted all game..

this.. unfortunately, our size means we really do not have a dribble-penetrator.. which is why we have to push the transition game... which, hopefully, means the opponent misses shots and we rebound everything.. but the more they hit, the fewer opportunities we have to avoid facing a zone in half-court.

we shot poorly in stretches.. and Willis had a star who could not miss.. we should have still won.. but did not.. just forget and move on and get one more upset than we counted on.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Problem wasn’t offense.

We scored 65 in 55 possessions. Offense was NOT the problem!

 

[BillyC80]

We scored 65 in 55 possessions. Offense was NOT the problem!

Our offense wasn’t the only problem but we could have done more with it.

If we attacked the zone and drew some fouls we’d get to the line more and score some more points while the clock is stopped.

We also could have gotten one of their starters in foul trouble but instead we were content to pass around the perimeter and take threes. We were fortunate that Geo shot well above his average on threes while taking so many of them.

Quick cuts and passing and forcing their defense to expend more energy would have helped us on our defensive possessions.

 

[RUChoppin]

We scored 65 in 55 possessions. Offense was NOT the problem!

That's only one element of offense.

We played at a slow pace, which benefited a team trying to rest their short rotation. We didn't attack the paint and force them to foul, which benefited a team trying to protect their short rotation from foul trouble and kept us off the FT line. We didn't force them to work very hard on defense, which allowed a team playing their starters from tip to buzzer to have fresher legs at the end of halves.

Our offense didn't do what it could to benefit us defensively - it didn't do the things you need to do against a short-handed team to grind them down and make their lack of depth a problem. Their lack of depth ended up not even being a factor, since their starters played 97% of their minutes.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

You score 65 points in 55 possessions. I suppose you can score more, but we would take that output ANY day.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

That's only one element of offense.

We played at a slow pace, which benefited a team trying to rest their short rotation. We didn't attack the paint and force them to foul, which benefited a team trying to protect their short rotation from foul trouble and kept us off the FT line. We didn't force them to work very hard on defense, which allowed a team playing their starters from tip to buzzer to have fresher legs at the end of halves.

Our offense didn't do what it could to benefit us defensively - it didn't do the things you need to do against a short-handed team to grind them down and make their lack of depth a problem. Their lack of depth ended up not even being a factor, since their starters played 97% of their minutes.

Was their depleted bench any worse than our bench has been all year? We also played our guts out 3 days before and flew across the country. It is possible playing to a slow tempo benefited us more than them.

 

[RUChoppin]

Was their depleted bench any worse than our bench has been all year? We also played our guts out 3 days before and flew across the country. It is possible playing to a slow tempo benefited us more than them.

Who knows how their depleted bench was... they only played 6 minutes all game. We were handed a gift that they didn't have subs, and we didn't try to get them to use their subs. That's on the offense not exploiting an opponent's weakness.

 

[bac2therac]

We scored 65 in 55 possessions. Offense was NOT the problem!

We didnt score for 6 minutes toward the end of the game

We had one fg in the last 6 minutes of the first half

 

[bac2therac]

Was their depleted bench any worse than our bench has been all year? We also played our guts out 3 days before and flew across the country. It is possible playing to a slow tempo benefited us more than them.

One of their players had to have IV fluids that morning

You are making excuses

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Who knows how their depleted bench was... they only played 6 minutes all game. We were handed a gift that they didn't have subs, and we didn't try to get them to use their subs. That's on the offense not exploiting an opponent's weakness.

We don't have subs either.

2nd half against Iowa
Baker 18:04
Mulcahy 19:48
Caleb 18:23
Ron 18:22
Cliff 16:44

 

[bac2therac]

Starting off down 7-0 and 17-5 has nothing to do with being tired

This game was lost in the first 7 minutes