Final Word - Statistical Analysis - 1-3-1

#26
#26
In my opinion it should only be used in spot minutes. That defense can be a huge curveball for opponents but hard to run for long stretches of the game. Having said that if it is working you stick with it. However, man to man has to be your primary defense.
 
#27
#27
85Destiny said:
In my opinion it should only be used in spot minutes. That defense can be a huge curveball for opponents but hard to run for long stretches of the game. Having said that if it is working you stick with it. However, man to man has to be your primary defense.
Click to expand...
Bravo, that is what I have been saying all along! Use it to win games! Tennessee slaughtered Alabama when they ran it for 15 minutes, turning a 6 point lead into a 17 point win. They used it the fourth quarter against Florida and cut a 7 point lead to 1. In both instances they closed the games with the man-to-man! You might as well say it wasn't used in the other games, one of them it showed for 30 seconds! Vandy, Missouri, and Texas A&M were games they could have won with it in my opinion. One poster said that it was Ray Mears' bread and butter defense. I don't remember that far back. Does anyone else know if that is correct?
 
#28
#28
cncchris33 said:
Jim Boeheim, John Chaney, Scott Drew, John Beilein obviously disagree, but to each their own.

I think some coaches use it effectively because they recruit personnel to run it well knowing 95% of teams they will face are uncomfortable playing against it. Some coaches, like you said, use it to mask defensive deficiencies.

Coaches like Boeheim aren't using it to mask deficiencies. They are using it as a weapon. Given his personal success as coach, I'd say when used correctly, it can lead to team success.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it wasn't effective, I've said in the past many times, using it randomly to throw teams off rhythm is smart. Using it primarily as your d is weak, plus its easier to stay focused locked into a guy than it is a spot. IMO I loathed zone when I played, I took great pride in locking a guy up. So maybe that's why I think that way.
 
#29
#29
85Destiny said:
In my opinion it should only be used in spot minutes. That defense can be a huge curveball for opponents but hard to run for long stretches of the game. Having said that if it is working you stick with it. However, man to man has to be your primary defense.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
#30
#30
BadJerry20 said:
I didn't say it wasn't effective, I've said in the past many times, using it randomly to throw teams off rhythm is smart. Using it primarily as your d is weak, plus its easier to stay focused locked into a guy than it is a spot. IMO I loathed zone when I played, I took great pride in locking a guy up. So maybe that's why I think that way.
Click to expand...

Jim Boeheim and John Chaney run/ran zone defense exclusively, and they are both hall of fame coaches with nearly 1700 career wins between them, and counting. They used zone as a base defense their entire careers. I wouldn't call either of them weak-minded.

I get that you don't like it personally, but to call it weak, relative to the success of two HOF coaches who employed it as their primary defensive scheme, is a very general and broad stroke to paint with, IMO.

I will agree that man-to-man defense is a simpler concept to grasp, and that generally speaking, is the preferred method of the majority of coaches today.
 
Last edited:
#31
#31
Now name all of the HOF coaches that didn't use it as their primary D. Lol It's fine that we don't agree but naming a couple of coaches with 1 National Title, and 4 final fours in a combined 60 years, definitely isn't going to change my mind. Honestly it will strengthen my belief.

We can just agree to disagree.
 
#32
#32
BadJerry20 said:
Now name all of the HOF coaches that didn't use it as their primary D. Lol It's fine that we don't agree but naming a couple of coaches with 1 National Title, and 4 final fours in a combined 60 years, definitely isn't going to change my mind. We can just agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to change your mind. As I already acknowledged, you don't like it, and I'm fine with that. I just don't get the notion of calling it "weak" in a blanket fashion, as if it absolutely cannot work as a primary defensive scheme. It can work, and I was only providing examples of successful coaches who have employed it as such.

I'm not trying to bang you over the head with it. I just disagree with the idea that it is a weak mindset and incapable of being successful.
 
#33
#33
Please show me where I said it is a weak mindset or incapable of winning. Though going by wins vs rings and final 4 appearances of those 2 guys, it obviously more regular season successful than tourney successful.

I think you are reading way to much into a single word. As a player I hated it cause I had to help cover weaker guys, that couldn't guard their man, that's why I think its weak. I'm not and have not said coaches that use it have a weak mindset, or can't be successful. Thats something you pulled from what I said. Honestly it started half as a joke, (by quoting Bomani Jones) but I forgot it's the no fun zone around here lately.
 
#35
#35
BadJerry20 said:
Not a fan of Bomani Jones I guess?

I did hate zone when I played, I thought it was weak. Now that I'm older I realize it's to cover the weak.
Click to expand...

Unless you have athletes playing zone that are good enough to play man..then it becomes a strength over another teams weakness - playing against a zone that has no weakness.. Thats why its so effective.

I think if UT ran a 1-2-2 zone it could be pretty damn good.
 
Last edited:
#36
#36
K-town Vol Fan said:
Unless you have athletes playing zone that are good enough to play man..then it becomes a strength over another teams weakness - playing against a zone that has no weakness.. Thats why its so effective.

I think if UT ran a 1-2-2 zone it could be pretty damn good.
Click to expand...



I've said in the past that we have length that would be great in a zone and pressing. I just don't like it as the primary defense. Come tourney time you have to be able to man up and stop people.
 
#37
#37
BadJerry20 said:
Please show me where I said it is a weak mindset or incapable of winning. Though going by wins vs rings and final 4 appearances of those 2 guys, it obviously more regular season successful than tourney successful.

I think you are reading way to much into a single word. As a player I hated it cause I had to help cover weaker guys, that couldn't guard their man, that's why I think its weak. I'm not and have not said coaches that use it have a weak mindset, or can't be successful. Thats something you pulled from what I said. Honestly it started half as a joke, (by quoting Bomani Jones) but I forgot it's the no fun zone around here lately.
Click to expand...

"Using it primarily as your D is weak."

Those were your words. Perhaps I read too much into the word 'weak'. Perhaps your phrasing was a little misleading vs your actual point.

I realized you were joking, but I guess our obvious difference in opinion escalated. I wasn't trying to institute a no-fun zone.

My apologies if I took your comments out of context.
 
#38
#38
cncchris33 said:
"Using it primarily as your D is weak."

Those were your words. Perhaps I read too much into the word 'weak'. Perhaps your phrasing was a little misleading vs your actual point.

I realized you were joking, but I guess our obvious difference in opinion escalated. I wasn't trying to institute a no-fun zone.

My apologies if I took your comments out of context.
Click to expand...


I don't think saying it's weak is saying it's a weak mindset or incapable of being successful. I think we got lost in translation a little.


My apologies I could have been a little more clear from the beginning. I understand why coaches do it and it's a useful tool, that can be successful. The weak comment is more toward when I played, and the type of player I was, in your face defend the length of the court type. As I admitted that where some of my dislike for zone being the primary d stems from. Oddly enough I was one of the first people saying we had the type of players perfect for zone, in spurts. But I do believe man is just better, tougher basketball especially tourney time.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top