How did that completely eliminate Miller and Jackson?
Who “sagged” down low with Cliff?
Who “sagged” down low with Cliff?
Last edited:
2nd half Zone
- Thread starter zappaa
- Start date
Mostly I think it was Paul or Ron depending on which side of the court the ball was on. Indiana could not get the ball (not sure they tried that hard) into the interior of the zone near the foul line. I am not sure if we were playing a straight 2-3 or some type of hybrid but it was very effective particularly with regard to slowing down TJD while protecting Cliff as well. I think it also left us in better rebounding position to avoid giving up a ton of second chances that were occurring in the first half.
For not playing zone that much we looked pretty comfortable in it with only a few breakdowns noted. I was almost a little surprised that we went back to man to man at the end as that seemed to result in them getting some open three looks again as we were probably focused on denying the paint.
For not playing zone that much we looked pretty comfortable in it with only a few breakdowns noted. I was almost a little surprised that we went back to man to man at the end as that seemed to result in them getting some open three looks again as we were probably focused on denying the paint.
Was also helpful in conserving some energy, allowing some of our starters to play more minutes.
I think they did it so Cliff didn’t have to come out of the game. Pike knew Jackson Davis would eat everyone else for lunch.
Great call by Pike, and bad adjustment by Woodson. IU did not consistently try to get the ball to the high post. And when they did it was Thompson rather than Jackson. They were content to take second half jumpers. Granted, they were open looks because we packed it in but when they aren’t falling you need to run some different sets.
The zone makes the double down low a lot easier and quicker to execute, which makes the double more effective.
Rutgers should play more zone because their players don't have the lateral quickness to play man to man defense for extended periods of time.
Got a few pokeaways as well. Best in game adjustment by Pike all year long. Davis just just 1 fg and I thhink only 2 or 3 attempts. Wizardry!
Great adjustment by Pikiell and even better to wait until the 2nd half.
You would have thought Indiana never played against a zone before.
You would have thought Indiana never played against a zone before.
Its almost a hybrid type match up the only time it really hurt us was the late 3 when Geo left his side of the court as he was caught watching the ball
It "worked" because Parker Stewart shot 2-9 on three pointers (1-7 before the final minute I think). It's a gamble... probably the right move since TJD was so good early. Davison and Hepburn combined to hit 6-12 against us the game before. Sometimes you get torched like that.
I think our zone defense has been good all year. Problem was that we have struggled terribly in rebounding while playing zone. In past games we were able to force bad shots but an offensive rebound and put back negated the advantage. Did not have that problem last night and that was the difference.
I do agree that the makeup of the team would suggest more zone play and Caleb is smart enough to expand his zone when its to RU's advantage
I do agree that the makeup of the team would suggest more zone play and Caleb is smart enough to expand his zone when its to RU's advantage
That's the 2-3 that everyone had played since biddy-ball. For Pike it usually reverts to man-to-man with under 10 on the shot clock. I thought Indiana would have movement and ball movement practiced to break it down. It's pretty basic. Guess they chose to practice something else that week last summer.
Our perimeter players weren’t always moving to the open spot.
especially with our size and length not sure why it wasn't done more.
But I guess when you have a guy like Caleb you want to utilize him and man defense does that
My ONE criticism of playing the zone of Pike ….
I really want us to not always play the same zone defense out of a time out after we have been playing it ….
Opponents spend part of that time out figuring out how to solve the last thing they saw in our zone to counter what’s working for us
After a time out …
We should man up one possession out of a time out after playing the Zone, maybe two, and then switch back to the zone to confuse them and make what was said in the time not as easy reset
I really want us to not always play the same zone defense out of a time out after we have been playing it ….
Opponents spend part of that time out figuring out how to solve the last thing they saw in our zone to counter what’s working for us
After a time out …
We should man up one possession out of a time out after playing the Zone, maybe two, and then switch back to the zone to confuse them and make what was said in the time not as easy reset
Teams have adjusted and are willing for PM to beat them one on one. Right strategy so far.
Matchup zone perhaps? My father-in-law, who coached high school basketball for years, raves about the matchup, because it's difficult for offenses to identify initially, and then hard to navigate around.
Agreed in certain matchups especially but should be thrown in more
Yes
Before this it was working to double Paul. Last bunch of games everything is working. Paul has struggled and needs to find his game. Attack quicker with purpose. Back to over dribbling and analyzing waiting for someone to cut while everyone stands and stares
Looks like it starts as a matchup zone. But after a certain time we follow players through the lane which is man. We don’t hand off the the teammate in that area.
Would definitely call it a matchup to man. The big plus for us is we pretty much have 4 players that can guard any of the opponents 4 players. Whoever you are closest to becomes your man. Cliff just has to stay with the center who in this game was not an outside threat so he could remain low.