Zone defense = loss

[RocknRollface]

For the second time in 3 games we got killed playing zone, while the other team struggled against our man.

From what I can tell our zone generally accomplishes three things, allows the opposing guards to get in the middle of the lane when ever they want, gives up wide open 3 looks if the opponent has any patience and allows for easy offensive rebounding.

Its disgusting.

Good job sticking with it until the end of the game coaches.

 

[ROCKY MOUNTAIN HAWK]

Yep. Time to bag that except for occasionally. Can't be our primary Def.

 

[And1Hawk]

For the second time in 3 games we got killed playing zone, while the other team struggled against our man.

From what I can tell our zone generally accomplishes three things, allows the opposing guards to get in the middle of the lane when ever they want, gives up wide open 3 looks if the opponent has any patience and allows for easy offensive rebounding.

Its disgusting.

Good job sticking with it until the end of the game coaches.

I do not like it either but you might be overlooking the reason we are playing it more. We are gassed and no longer moving our feet to play effective man for the whole game. As others have mentioned teams are also trying to pull Woody out from the basket as he's are only effective rebounder.

We need to get our legs back this next week.

 

[Mohawkeye]

Our zone has been very good at times this year. It is all about effort. Sometimes you become complacent in a zone. I think our second half man defense against PSU was the best I've seen from us in a while. We definitely need to find our defensive intensity again.

 

[DavenportHawk8]

For the second time in 3 games we got killed playing zone, while the other team struggled against our man.

From what I can tell our zone generally accomplishes three things, allows the opposing guards to get in the middle of the lane when ever they want, gives up wide open 3 looks if the opponent has any patience and allows for easy offensive rebounding.

Its disgusting.

Good job sticking with it until the end of the game coaches.

Well I watched tonight and the last 3-4 games and I now understand why we play zone.

There are 3 reasons why Iowa play zone.

1. Woody is a great player and I love the guy to death. His hustle is great, but he is not good against a stretch 5 player. If he is matched up against a player who can shoot the 3 and also attack, Woody is trouble and usually gets into foul trouble. He is a liability on defense if he can't stand in the lane.

2. Guards are good, but normally get beat to the lane off the dribble. Gessell and Clemmons are good players, but they usually get caught in screens or switches that cause them to have to recover and they are usually toast and then it forces Woody and others to come over to help and that allows the "dump off" pass.

3. Rotations when we are in man are horrible. We usually have 2 guys collapsing on 1 player and then we leave a player wide open (much like tonight) they had at least 6 of their 10 3pt makes wide open. Rotations are tougher when you are in man to man.

Overall this group's defense has gone down. The zone is tough at times, but lately Minny, IU, and PSU had exploited it. So now what do you do? if you play man to man, you set yourself up for mis-matches and issues.

Fran has to come out with a new wrinkle for the next couple of games.

 

[HawkLogic]

I agree our zone is not working and not that good, but I don't think our Man to man has been that great either.

When teams go small at center, Woody can't guard. Uhl has athleticism to guard smaller centers, but the effort isn't there. Wagner at least blocks some shots and rebounds, but too much to expect much offense out of him.

I think we are reeling. Let's hope Fran can turn this around.

 

[RocknRollface]

Well I watched tonight and the last 3-4 games and I now understand why we play zone.

There are 3 reasons why Iowa play zone.

1. Woody is a great player and I love the guy to death. His hustle is great, but he is not good against a stretch 5 player. If he is matched up against a player who can shoot the 3 and also attack, Woody is trouble and usually gets into foul trouble. He is a liability on defense if he can't stand in the lane.

2. Guards are good, but normally get beat to the lane off the dribble. Gessell and Clemmons are good players, but they usually get caught in screens or switches that cause them to have to recover and they are usually toast and then it forces Woody and others to come over to help and that allows the "dump off" pass.

3. Rotations when we are in man are horrible. We usually have 2 guys collapsing on 1 player and then we leave a player wide open (much like tonight) they had at least 6 of their 10 3pt makes wide open. Rotations are tougher when you are in man to man.

Overall this group's defense has gone down. The zone is tough at times, but lately Minny, IU, and PSU had exploited it. So now what do you do? if you play man to man, you set yourself up for mis-matches and issues.

Fran has to come out with a new wrinkle for the next couple of games.

Well I watched the same thing and came away with the opposite opinion. Clearly one is effective and one isn't.

1. PSU doesn't have that player. That goofball that scored a career high, while quicker than Woody isn't an outside shooter. He averages 3 pts a game.

2. I disagree. Penn state guards were getting in the lane when we played zone not man. Mike and AC are very good at staying in front of most guards.

3. Again, our man was clearly much better than zone, in our last two losses. Yes they over help but they do it in the zone too and you don't have to have help if you don't get beat, and we get beat way more in zone which leads to everybody collapsing and leaving shooters wide open. Same thing with screens, they struggle to defend the high screen in zone. Its not nearly as much of an issue in man. Woodbury can hedge on the big on small screen well and you can switch pretty much everything else.


Overall against Indiana and PSU, the zone was horrible the man was very good.

They flat out gave the game tonight away by insisting on that ridiculous zone.

 

[RocknRollface]

I agree our zone is not working and not that good, but I don't think our Man to man has been that great either.

When teams go small at center, Woody can't guard. Uhl has athleticism to guard smaller centers, but the effort isn't there. Wagner at least blocks some shots and rebounds, but too much to expect much offense out of him.

I think we are reeling. Let's hope Fran can turn this around.

We haven't faced any outside shooting 5s that im aware of.

 

[RocknRollface]

The lack of ability to rebound out of the zone is as big of an issue as any also.

 

[EpenesaEpenesa]

Iowa isn't disciplined in it so therefore the zone sucks. Once again tonight, gambling, standing straight up, sprinting at shooters instead of being in a stance and being able to contest and get back. It's scramble mode Everytime someone reverses the ball. The zone is a disaster right now and that's putting it mildly.

 

[RocknRollface]

Iowa isn't disciplined in it so therefore the zone sucks. Once again tonight, gambling, standing straight up, sprinting at shooters instead of being in a stance and being able to contest and get back. It's scramble mode Everytime someone reverses the ball. The zone is a disaster right now and that's putting it mildly.

Absolutely.

The thing that blows my mind is that they stayed with it for most of the game.

 

[kzoohawk80]

Absolutely.

The thing that blows my mind is that they stayed with it for most of the game.

Fran must be tired too. He needs a week off. 3 straight games of this zone being inneffective. Can't figure out why he can't play man to man for 40 minutes. Plenty of other teams do it. It also doesn't make sense with Fran playing two pg's.

 

[hawkeye122671]

The zone is not the problem. Half committed players is the issue. Average players are penetrating on Mg and Ac. That is the break down and uhl is completely lost in any defense. When he is in, we almost have to zone to cover his inability to keep his guy in front.

 

[hexumhawk]

I think they have used the zone wisely through the year as a way to throw off offenses during games and like it when they switch in and out of MM or zone.

The issue is when we are a superior athletic team with length you should be going man to man for the majority of the game like last night.

 

[RocknRollface]

The zone is not the problem. Half committed players is the issue. Average players are penetrating on Mg and Ac. That is the break down and uhl is completely lost in any defense. When he is in, we almost have to zone to cover his inability to keep his guy in front.

Not buying that theory, they have kept most everything in front of them when they play man.

The fact is the zone is leading to a ton of wide open 3 looks and offensive rebounds while man has led to mostly good defensive possessions.

Man and zone are not equally valid defenses. Zone is a gimmick that has inherent flaws and opponents have it scouted now and have been practicing for it.

 

[hexumhawk]

In theory when in zone other teams should get off the 3 when they want but makes it harder to get the ball to the post regularly. I think the coaches thought they wouldn't shoot it as well as they did...it happens.

 

[RocknRollface]

In theory when in zone other teams should get off the 3 when they want but makes it harder to get the ball to the post regularly. I think the coaches thought they wouldn't shoot it as well as they did...it happens.

There was no part of it that worked well.

They got penetration in the middle fairly easily.

There were multiple times when one psu player would drive right between two Iowa players because neither one committed to him.

 

[hexumhawk]

There was no part of it that worked well.

They got penetration in the middle fairly easily.

There were multiple times when one psu player would drive right between two Iowa players because neither one committed to him.

True but that wasn't why we lost. We lost because they shot over 50% from 3.

 

[kzoohawk80]

True but that wasn't why we lost. We lost because they shot over 50% from 3.

They shot 35%.

 

[FranklinHawk]

True but that wasn't why we lost. We lost because they shot over 50% from 3.

Actually they shot just under 36% from 3 (10-28), it just seemed like they were shooting 70%.

 

[Herkster5]

They shot 35%.

PSU was 9/18 with less than 10 to go in the game, I think it was around the 6 minute mark, but I'm not certain. So, they were shooting extremely well, except the last 5-7 minutes.