(01-14-2019 10:39 AM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 10:22 AM)billthebighawksfan Wrote:  I looked at the game and the Hawks gave up very good looks via the zone too (as EVERY team does) so the "PPP" doesn't really matter here plus not enough data. The zone is not an end all, but can be great as a change of pace unless you're a Syracuse. It was funny that it looked 2/3, but at times resembled a 3/2 due to a wing or 2 really extending out. A hybrid or match up can really work great too and can cause problems.

The full court/3/4 court pressure did help because it changed their rhythm. Sims looks good at the top of that IMHO. It can wear down a team over time and generally energizes the team that's doing it. The most aggressive defensive team seems to win nearly every time.

It was a 2-3, but IMO was effective due to exactly that (the wings extending out). For a zone to be as effective as possible the players HAVE to move and extend as necessary. Too many people think zone is a "lazy man's" defense, without recognizing it takes more talking and movement than most people think. Zones that don't move give up looks. Zones that move disrupt shots and make them difficult. Will it always be 100% effective, of course not. But in our case, it worked against a team that was lighting us up. I'd like to see more of it going forward. We shall see what move coach makes next.

The important take away form this game was not that we played zone, or pressed or man 2 man. But, rather that coach started in something that wasn't working and FINALLY switched to something else. I'm a firm believer in giving different looks, but to me the adjustment coach made was the biggest win here. Especially since he's been to stubborn to make these adjustments in the past.

(01-14-2019 10:50 AM)Seahawkhoops Wrote:  The important take away form this game was not that we played zone, or pressed or man 2 man. But, rather that coach started in something that wasn't working and FINALLY switched to something else. I'm a firm believer in giving different looks, but to me the adjustment coach made was the biggest win here. Especially since he's been to stubborn to make these adjustments in the past.

^^This^^

I posted in the game thread, but I was not seeing anything special out of your zone defense. The press did damage though. Slowed tempo and forced us into self-inflicted mistakes. Your team then took those mistakes and punished us for them with big shots and huge momentum swings. I mean when you pressed initially you went on a 17-2 run that made a 7 point deficit a comfortable 8 point lead, in a mere 3:34 or something like that. The press worked against us. I do not think the zone had much of an impact from watching the game.

I definitely agree with Hoops on the switching things up. But, after sitting right on the floor for so many games now, I still see a difference in energy and purpose in some games versus other games. I was at the games in Asheville. And the energy was not there against Gardner Webb as compared to the next day with Eastern Illinois. They looked very flat and out of sorts. I saw the same with the Delaware game as compared to the Drexel game. They came out with a sense of purpose and we're diving after loose balls against Drexel. And they looked to be just standing around at times against Delaware.
Just like the defensive schemes, this has to be on the coaching staff to get our guys approaching every game with a sense of purpose. The next two games are going to be very difficult to win. I feel like if can win one of these games, it will be a steal for us.

(01-14-2019 11:22 AM)SEA33HAWK Wrote:  I definitely agree with Hoops on the switching things up. But, after sitting right on the floor for so many games now, I still see a difference in energy and purpose in some games versus other games. I was at the games in Asheville. And the energy was not there against Gardner Webb as compared to the next day with Eastern Illinois. They looked very flat and out of sorts. I saw the same with the Delaware game as compared to the Drexel game. They came out with a sense of purpose and we're diving after loose balls against Drexel. And they looked to be just standing around at times against Delaware.
Just like the defensive schemes, this has to be on the coaching staff to get our guys approaching every game with a sense of purpose. The next two games are going to be very difficult to win. I feel like if can win one of these games, it will be a steal for us.

Yeah, I've seen some "going through the motions" a few times as well. And good D regardless of type is all about energy!

I think we can all agree that going to the press/zone combo was the best our defense has looked since the Eastern Illinois game. While I think sticking with the press is a no brainer at this point, I wouldn't expect the zone to magically make us a good defensive team. While it worked Saturday, there will be games where good shooting teams will be able to exploit it. McGrath is going to have to make adjustments, I don't think their is a set half court defense that's going to work for us every game.

(01-14-2019 12:20 PM)Gary Miller Wrote:  I think we can all agree that going to the press/zone combo was the best our defense has looked since the Eastern Illinois game. While I think sticking with the press is a no brainer at this point, I wouldn't expect the zone to magically make us a good defensive team. While it worked Saturday, there will be games where good shooting teams will be able to exploit it. McGrath is going to have to make adjustments, I don't think their is a set half court defense that's going to work for us every game.

If we just instituted the press on a pretty regular basis, i'd be thrilled. The numbers show that was the difference maker.

(01-14-2019 07:25 PM)82hawk Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 12:20 PM)Gary Miller Wrote:  I think we can all agree that going to the press/zone combo was the best our defense has looked since the Eastern Illinois game. While I think sticking with the press is a no brainer at this point, I wouldn't expect the zone to magically make us a good defensive team. While it worked Saturday, there will be games where good shooting teams will be able to exploit it. McGrath is going to have to make adjustments, I don't think their is a set half court defense that's going to work for us every game.

If we just instituted the press on a pretty regular basis, i'd be thrilled. The numbers show that was the difference maker.

I agree with that. We have to make shots to set up our press though, something we didn’t do against Delaware.

(01-14-2019 07:45 PM)Gary Miller Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 07:25 PM)82hawk Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 12:20 PM)Gary Miller Wrote:  I think we can all agree that going to the press/zone combo was the best our defense has looked since the Eastern Illinois game. While I think sticking with the press is a no brainer at this point, I wouldn't expect the zone to magically make us a good defensive team. While it worked Saturday, there will be games where good shooting teams will be able to exploit it. McGrath is going to have to make adjustments, I don't think their is a set half court defense that's going to work for us every game.

If we just instituted the press on a pretty regular basis, i'd be thrilled. The numbers show that was the difference maker.

I agree with that. We have to make shots to set up our press though, something we didn’t do against Delaware.

And that starts with good ball movement and not just jacking up a quick 3 or long 2. Our offense looked beautiful against Drexel.

Quote from CB on his last Show, "Going from M-M to Zone when team's are hot means they will get even more open looks, but somehow our zone worked." Umm no. It's called a 3-2 Zone that matches up on the perimeter. Somehow this guy thinks the only Zone is 2-3. Wait till he sees Hofstra's matchup.

(01-16-2019 04:48 AM)HAWKING Wrote:  Quote from CB on his last Show, "Going from M-M to Zone when team's are hot means they will get even more open looks, but somehow our zone worked." Umm no. It's called a 3-2 Zone that matches up on the perimeter. Somehow this guy thinks the only Zone is 2-3. Wait till he sees Hofstra's matchup.

Well that quote is incredibly disheartening

We've definitely used more zone looks than 2-3. And maybe he's not trying to show too many of his cards?

That's my hope anyways....

I’ve run a 3/2 matchup for my teams.

(01-16-2019 11:01 AM)billthebighawksfan Wrote:  I’ve run a 3/2 matchup for my teams.

We ran one in a military intramaural game yesterday. We typically use a 2-3 zone, but after being down 11 to start the second half switched to a 3-2 because some of their 3's were in our gaps. We stuck with a 3-2, they didn't hit anymore outside shots and our bigs on the interior were able to alter or deflect their inside offense; we won by three.

If we can make those adjustments in intramaurals I'm not sure why it's so difficult at any other level of basketball.

(01-16-2019 11:41 AM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  If we can make those adjustments in intramaurals I'm not sure why it's so difficult at any other level of basketball.

In the infamous words of our former coach Bruiser Flint: "what do you want me to do?"

(01-16-2019 11:43 AM)dan10 Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 11:41 AM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  If we can make those adjustments in intramaurals I'm not sure why it's so difficult at any other level of basketball.

In the infamous words of our former coach Bruiser Flint: "what do you want me to do?"

I miss his incompetence.

Bruiser had some good team back in the day for sure. It's a shame that he didn't go dancing, but the CAA was unreal back then. UNCW,VCU,ODU, GMU, Drexel and Hofstra all were mostly very good between 2000-2006. And, I'm talking top 30-top 50 good nationally at times and most certainly top 100 ish good.

You're cruel CG! Bruiser has forgotten more basketball than most people that live on planet earth! Take that any way you want to....tehe

(01-16-2019 01:13 PM)billthebighawksfan Wrote:  Bruiser had some good team back in the day for sure. It's a shame that he didn't go dancing, but the CAA was unreal back then. UNCW,VCU,ODU, GMU, Drexel and Hofstra all were mostly very good between 2000-2006. And, I'm talking top 30-top 50 good nationally at times and most certainly top 100 ish good.

(01-16-2019 01:14 PM)billthebighawksfan Wrote:  You're cruel CG! Bruiser has forgotten more basketball than most people that live on planet earth! Take that any way you want to....tehe

He's an example of a coach who the game passed by.

Bruiser was still trying to recruit/coach kids who were big and played the game physically, even as the game was shifting to the more "European" style of free-flowing lanes and perimeter shooting. He wanted games to turn into rock fights, whereas the NCAA wanted high-scoring, fast-paced contests.

It's OK to zig when others are zagging at times, but not when the rules are shifting dramatically in the opposite direction of your preferred style of play. It's adapt or die, and Bruiser quickly became a dinosaur.

(01-16-2019 01:14 PM)billthebighawksfan Wrote:  You're cruel CG! Bruiser has forgotten more basketball than most people that live on planet earth! Take that any way you want to....tehe

I don't doubt that, as pointed out by 08 in the post above mine... he just couldn't get it done in the CAA. I'm appreciative of that. Does he best my basketball knowledge, of course... doesn't mean I need to value that in terms of being thankful he couldn't get it done.

I'll pick on W&M here for a sec too just for fairness (and since I'm cruel). Shaver is a quality coach, IMO but for whatever reason that school has just been unable to put together a team that can get to the NCAAs. Now, I wouldn't necessarily describe W&M coaching as incompetent but for our sake in recent years when we had high quality teams, I'm appreciative of their inability to create sustainable tournament success.