I don’t figure we’ll see much zone going forward but I don’t think we executed very well. 17 3PT attempts out of 60 field goals wasn’t nearly enough imo, especially when you factor in all the foul shots, and there was just a ton of settling in the mid-range
Zone Offense
- Thread starter PhillyRU
- Start date
That zone offense was terrible. I've seen better schemes from grade school teams. We have weapons.
The staff understands they need to coach offense right?
The staff understands they need to coach offense right?
This board is so funny. Last game you guys killed RU for horrible defense. Tonight they hold a team to 41% shooting 4/17 on threes and dominate the glass. So of course now you kill them because the offense is terrible.
They shoot 24% from 3. That's basically what they shot tonight.
Forget whether our shots went in or not. Did you think how we ran our zone offense was good, ok or poor?
Forget whether our shots went in or not. Did you think how we ran our zone offense was good, ok or poor?
We allowed a team shooting 35.6% from the field on the season to hit 40.6% today though. I don’t think it was a terrible defensive performance but not exactly a point of pride.
Whichever way you slice it, these performances aren’t really good enough. We haven’t covered in three games and are slipping in efficiency metrics that will likely be quite important come February.
pretty much this. Except for the first few minutes, all we did is pass it around the perimeter and didn’t get it to the short corner. Limited player movement in and out of the high post , limited cutters, zero screens on or off the ball, and posting up guys who can’t post up. Coaching malpractice
We were bad defensively again. Two or three points away from having a third team score a season high against us.
The zone offense philosophy wasn’t bad. The execution was awful.
The players didn’t reverse the ball quick enough. And the high-low was there, but by the time it was seen by the person with the ball, it was usually too late.
IMO, if we see 2-3 zone in the future, put Ace in the high post, Somerville at the low post/dunker. Then have Harper, Hayes, and Martini camp outside the perimeter.
The players didn’t reverse the ball quick enough. And the high-low was there, but by the time it was seen by the person with the ball, it was usually too late.
IMO, if we see 2-3 zone in the future, put Ace in the high post, Somerville at the low post/dunker. Then have Harper, Hayes, and Martini camp outside the perimeter.
Need Somerville to pass the ball once in a while too.
Absolutely
Can’t do the blackhole impression
Especially since he has passing skills
We need kick outs to the corners
Merrimack had open 3s galore all night and they killed us in the paint
Dont get fooled by 64 points..it was a bad defensive effort
Poor defense and a poor offensive strategy against the zone most of the night. RU guards fell in love with their dribble which is not the way to beat the zone. It’s not just about taking more threes. The way to attack the Merrimack zone was flashing a player to the high post with Ace running the baseline. He either gets a three or a dunk when the zone reacts to the high post. The first couple possessions of the second half RU did exactly that with Derkak flashing to the high post and making a great pass to Ace for an openthree and then to the low post to the 5 for an easy shot. So clearly Pike knew the correct strategy, but the players did not execute it except for the first couple plays out of the locker room.
Merrimack had open 3 pointers they missed which likely won't happen against Notre Dame and Alabama.
Actually, Clark hurt Rutgers in the paint with his mid-range and attack game in the first half. Also, mid- major teams will always give their best effort against high majors. Rutgers will not see another team that will play exclusively zone, which has a way of mudding the game. I don't think Pike schemed up a game plan in the way he would against a was quality opponent. Merrimack was survive and move on. Fan concern themselves with style points more than coaches who look at the big picture.
There's really only 1 way to simplify the conversation about defense, or defensive intensity.....what player has the athletic abilities and size/arm length, to be a very good defensive player??
JWill.....probably the one player, already injured that could be better as the season moves on....
JMike is a solid on ball pesky type of player, but will be playing against guards who in most cases, is the opponent's best guard.
Derkack is playing very good defensive series in a row, but has had lapses where he loses his man.
Acuff is TBD as he's still probably 4 to 6 weeks away from being in true game shape, after being off his feet for 3+ months.
Ogbolr by all accounts is improving, but still very raw on both ends of the floor, but is the best chance of improving, but that comes with consequences on offense (6 turnovers in 40 minutes of play this season)
Hayes, Martini and the 3 freshman that are playing, I feel like are where they're supposed to be, but all 5 are considered "offensive players".
This roster and process to CHANGE, how we play basketball, was underway last year and we saw the results, when you attempt to make that change and you don't have shooting and scoring, playmaking on offense. Eventually the coaches decided to sit down better offensive players (Noah Fernandes) for more defensive guards (Simpson and Davis). The results were rather ugly.
It's hard to be the same fans who would criticize RU for taking so many mid-range shots like the small Merrimack guard did tonight AND complain about how inefficient that style of play is.
If RU took as many mid range shots as Merrimack did, it is impossible to win, which is why they scored only 63 points.....we gifted 2 on a layup off a lazy inbound pass and a foul on a 3 pointer in the final minute AND watched Derkack take 2 unexplainable 3s early in the shot clock with a double digit lead.
Is the defense a concern?? It is, if you believe Hayes, Martini, Ogbole, JWill and JMike are shut down defenders....(I don't think they are)....
At the same time, Merrimack was probably closer to being around 58 points scored, if the execution in the final 3 minutes is cleaned up.
Team's miss 3 pointers when they are rushed or have bigger players closing out on their shot attempts, which we did tonight.
I never thought at any point in time, that this roster was being built to defend at a Top 20 to 30 national level. Maybe expectations are too high and not appreciative of the offense we put on the floor, that makes an opponent work very hard to stop us. It's hard to shoot 45% from 3, if an opponent doesn't have the depth to slow down RU on offense.
JWill.....probably the one player, already injured that could be better as the season moves on....
JMike is a solid on ball pesky type of player, but will be playing against guards who in most cases, is the opponent's best guard.
Derkack is playing very good defensive series in a row, but has had lapses where he loses his man.
Acuff is TBD as he's still probably 4 to 6 weeks away from being in true game shape, after being off his feet for 3+ months.
Ogbolr by all accounts is improving, but still very raw on both ends of the floor, but is the best chance of improving, but that comes with consequences on offense (6 turnovers in 40 minutes of play this season)
Hayes, Martini and the 3 freshman that are playing, I feel like are where they're supposed to be, but all 5 are considered "offensive players".
This roster and process to CHANGE, how we play basketball, was underway last year and we saw the results, when you attempt to make that change and you don't have shooting and scoring, playmaking on offense. Eventually the coaches decided to sit down better offensive players (Noah Fernandes) for more defensive guards (Simpson and Davis). The results were rather ugly.
It's hard to be the same fans who would criticize RU for taking so many mid-range shots like the small Merrimack guard did tonight AND complain about how inefficient that style of play is.
If RU took as many mid range shots as Merrimack did, it is impossible to win, which is why they scored only 63 points.....we gifted 2 on a layup off a lazy inbound pass and a foul on a 3 pointer in the final minute AND watched Derkack take 2 unexplainable 3s early in the shot clock with a double digit lead.
Is the defense a concern?? It is, if you believe Hayes, Martini, Ogbole, JWill and JMike are shut down defenders....(I don't think they are)....
At the same time, Merrimack was probably closer to being around 58 points scored, if the execution in the final 3 minutes is cleaned up.
Team's miss 3 pointers when they are rushed or have bigger players closing out on their shot attempts, which we did tonight.
I never thought at any point in time, that this roster was being built to defend at a Top 20 to 30 national level. Maybe expectations are too high and not appreciative of the offense we put on the floor, that makes an opponent work very hard to stop us. It's hard to shoot 45% from 3, if an opponent doesn't have the depth to slow down RU on offense.
Rebounding is slowly improving. But dominating the glass last night was a bit of fools gold. Merrimack does not even attempt to rebound offensively. As soon as a shot goes up they race back down the floor to set up their zone and prevent fast break opportunities. And, when RU attacked the offensive glass, Merrimack was always in a zone, which has a built-in disadvantage for rebounding, especially against a bigger and more athletic RU team.
Even if you think Merrimack should have scored closer to 58 they've only scored that many one other time this year. I don't know if you've noticed, but thus far, we aren't good enough offensively to not be at least average defensively.
2 things 1 they had only 1 man under and the alley oop opportunities were there but we never fed them especially Ace
2 you have to get PJ more than 2 3 point shots
I do not think RU's problem was its "zone offense", at least not the DESIGN. I think it is POSSIBLE, RU just had an off shooting night from 2, NOT that RU's offensive sets versus the zone were poor.
The offensive problem RU faced vs Merrimack is that RU MISSED more shots at the rim and in the short to medium mid-range than they had in the prior 3 games, when they got INSIDE the spaces in the zone created by Merrimack extending to cover the 3.
Had RU hit even 50% of their 2-point shots they would have had 4 more baskets, or 8 more points ... and the score would have been 82-63 - or even worse, because it might have snowballed. Overall (not just at the rim), in its prior 3 games, RU had shot 65-104 from 2-point range, 62.5%. Versus Merrimack, RU shot 18-43, 42%, from 2 point range.
Upon looking at those numbers, I think the offensive GAME PLAN was fine, the SHOTS taken were generally fine. Many shots just did not fall. If RU had shot 50% from 2, that was 3-4 more FG. If RU had shot 60% from 2, closer to what they had done the prior 3 games, that would have meant 7-8 additional made FG (so, 88-63).
The offensive problem RU faced vs Merrimack is that RU MISSED more shots at the rim and in the short to medium mid-range than they had in the prior 3 games, when they got INSIDE the spaces in the zone created by Merrimack extending to cover the 3.
Had RU hit even 50% of their 2-point shots they would have had 4 more baskets, or 8 more points ... and the score would have been 82-63 - or even worse, because it might have snowballed. Overall (not just at the rim), in its prior 3 games, RU had shot 65-104 from 2-point range, 62.5%. Versus Merrimack, RU shot 18-43, 42%, from 2 point range.
Upon looking at those numbers, I think the offensive GAME PLAN was fine, the SHOTS taken were generally fine. Many shots just did not fall. If RU had shot 50% from 2, that was 3-4 more FG. If RU had shot 60% from 2, closer to what they had done the prior 3 games, that would have meant 7-8 additional made FG (so, 88-63).