An Old Fan's Advice To You Young Fans

Link or it didn't happen. You said it prevented 3's, which is why I think it's a joke.

I have always said man is the best option but 2-3 zone is a nice change and if run effectively can stop the 3. You want your opponent to shoot the ball from deep.... You just want a hand in his face. I will give my opponent the three all day if I have a hand in his face until I see a need to change back to man or half court trap our double. How is having 4 men guard the three as opposed to have having 3 men guarding the three not stop it? I have had 3 or 4 people back me on the boards who actually like myself gave relevant arguments while the rest of the "highly touted basketball IQ genius has just spouted out "oh what a joke" "troll" "are you kidding" "idiot" etc... I am really thinking that my argument of sending your 3 and 4 to trap (which is an option in a 2-3 not how it is always run) is a better argument then assuming I am a troll or idiot...

Im waiting for insightful opinions

Don't feed the beast.

At this point, I'm convinced this is complete shtick

how insightful... of course! I forgot "I'm convinced this is complete shtick" the ultimate argument for why 2-3 zone is infective. The basketball IQ around here is outstanding!!!!

Someone please give me a simple reason... here I will help... well skiver the 2-3 zones main goal is to stop the penetration...

skive: well yes though that is true when you as a coach choose to have your 3 and 4 trap in the corner and play up you shut down the corners and ultimately when stopping the penetration you should stop the three. Penetration is the most dangerous offensive maneuver in the game. It allows for 2 on situations in the post if you don't collapse and if you do then there may be an open three. (however with the 3 and 4 in position the three should always be contested.

You turn... here is an idea discuss the adv and dis-adv to allowing the opponent to shoot a three with a hand in his face...

I'm reminded of the story of the guy who hit his head with a hammer constantly. When asked why he did so, he said it was because he felt so good when he didn't.

I'm reminded of the story of the guy who hit his head with a hammer constantly. When asked why he did so, he said it was because he felt so good when he didn't.

please explain to me your reasoning...

please explain to me your reasoning...

I'm just ready for both sides to shut the eff up. Arguing this becoming as fruitful as conference re-alignment threads.

Edited January 14, 2012 by CMJ

I'm just ready for both sides to shut the eff up.

Are these basketball boards not a forum for fans to share their opinions and have them debated in a "professional" manner... which has been attempted before. (Lets assume a fan came on here and said tony Mitchel is awful he fouls to much and finds other little pieces of his game they do not like... my assumption is the response would be troll, or gtfo, a ton of negatives.... and just attacks without a knowledge of his game. Knowing basketball random facts about coaches from the 80s maybe be great for the tasty greek or others like him, but im waiting for the knowledge that comes on the court to be discussed).

Wow...racist overtones not appreciated here and adding "no offense" doesn't make it any the more appropriate. Dirk doesn't care for your slap at "white guys"...just sayin.....I don't think a person's skin color or race makes them any more or less an expert on basketball. Do you really think that?

never said that... was just an assumption though I could have sworn I added in hair color and weight as well...

though I thought segregation was over until I watched the little league teams play at the half time game about a month ago!

My point is that we've gone round and round on the zone stopping 3's or not.

In several threads.

No one is conceding anything, and people have tried to convince you that zone gives up many open 3 points shots. You have argued against this just as intently. It's going in circles. Let's at least drop it till the next postgame thread, okay?

My point is that we've gone round and round on the zone stopping 3's or not.

In several threads.

No one is conceding anything, and people have tried to convince you that zone gives up many open 3 points shots. You have argued against this just as intently. It's going in circles. Let's at least drop it till the next postgame thread, okay?

"contended 3 point shots", so whats the next topic then? Our offense? Its pretty stale when we slow it down and try to set things up (prior to Mitchel arriving) Sometimes we still sit on the ball

I wasn't saying you had to do anything Skiver, and I wasn't blaming you anymore than anyone else. But the argument ceased being informative and became a pissing contest at least a page or two ago. Feel free to keep it going if you want, I'm not a moderator. My initial comment was more of a general bitching at both sides not letting the damn thing die.

And I think we've usually had trouble playing a real down and dirty halfcourt game. Doesn't seem like what we know what to do half the time and the PG has to create at the tail end of the shot clock -- and this dates back many years. JJ's teams have always done better when they're playing in the 70's and 80's. So, let's play faster and run more.

Edited January 14, 2012 by CMJ

JJs record when we score 80+ is down dirty nasty.

JJs record when we score 80+ is down dirty nasty.

Isn't it something like 96-19?

We play great on the break and when we put the ball up in the first 14 seconds of the shot clock (minus Mitchel's botch last night haha)and nice quoting the numbers from the broadcast last night (they said Leonard noted that earlier)

We play great on the break and when we put the ball up in the first 14 seconds of the shot clock (minus Mitchel's botch last night haha)and nice quoting the numbers from the broadcast last night (they said Leonard noted that earlier)

Oh, he did? I just remember reading about it in some of the pregame notes MGSports puts up.

We still doing this?

i thought teams employ a zone to stop a team that has a more dominant inside game but run the risk of a 3 point shooting team 'shooting' them out of it. did i miss something on that?

i thought teams employ a zone to stop a team that has a more dominant inside game but run the risk of a 3 point shooting team 'shooting' them out of it. did i miss something on that?

No. Unless you're defending an un-defendable point you missed nothing.

i thought teams employ a zone to stop a team that has a more dominant inside game but run the risk of a 3 point shooting team 'shooting' them out of it. did i miss something on that?

Well its hard to explain when you are just saying "zone" and not specifying anything!!!! Zone... zone could be an offense (run by smaller teams) so just stating zone means nothing... and every defensive zone is different! Ridiculous

Well its hard to explain when you are just saying "zone" and not specifying anything!!!! Zone... zone could be an offense (run by smaller teams) so just stating zone means nothing... and every defensive zone is different! Ridiculous

my bust amigo. i was specifically referring to a 2-3 zone on defense which is the most common one employed in the college game.

1. used to stop superior inside game.

2. succeptible to outside shooting.

no?

my bust amigo. i was specifically referring to a 2-3 zone on defense which is the most common one employed in the college game.

1. used to stop superior inside game.

2. succeptible to outside shooting.

no?

stop. Get out while you can.

my bust amigo. i was specifically referring to a 2-3 zone on defense which is the most common one employed in the college game.

1. used to stop superior inside game.

2. succeptible to outside shooting.

no?

I really hope people do not get mad at me... but yes and no (depends on how you choose to run it and the ability of your players)

A team that runs a 2-3 zone where the 3 and 4 trap the corners and play up defend the three... especially for teams with incredibly athletic 3's and 4's. It also stops penetration which is the deadliest offense threat in the game because of the options you have when you drive in. Technically this is how you beat any zone. But hopefully you have athletes who can recover quickly. If you step up and stop the penetration then they have to swing the ball too one of the wings where your 4 and 2 may trap. If they choose to throw a cross court pass then hopefully your offense adjust quickly. If the lane should be shut down and if its not you have the baseline and you 5 protecting. Now if they send a cutter then the 5 steps up and the 3 drops down which may leave a man in the corner. That is where your 1 jumps out to get a hand in his face. Essentially you have 4 men guarding the perimeter. Man is always the best option but 2-3 zone does not hurt to stop penetration and force some bad shots hopefully.

stop. Get out while you can.

These discussion are great for business....can you imagine the number of clicks being generated just because one guy thinks the 2-3 zone is optimal for defending the 3-point shot.

I really hope people do not get mad at me... but yes and no (depends on how you choose to run it and the ability of your players)

A team that runs a 2-3 zone where the 3 and 4 trap the corners and play up defend the three... especially for teams with incredibly athletic 3's and 4's. It also stops penetration which is the deadliest offense threat in the game because of the options you have when you drive in. Technically this is how you beat any zone. But hopefully you have athletes who can recover quickly. If you step up and stop the penetration then they have to swing the ball too one of the wings where your 4 and 2 may trap. If they choose to throw a cross court pass then hopefully your offense adjust quickly. If the lane should be shut down and if its not you have the baseline and you 5 protecting. Now if they send a cutter then the 5 steps up and the 3 drops down which may leave a man in the corner. That is where your 1 jumps out to get a hand in his face. Essentially you have 4 men guarding the perimeter. Man is always the best option but 2-3 zone does not hurt to stop penetration and force some bad shots hopefully.

did you know that jim boeheim has successfully employed zone defenses for years?

did you know that jim boeheim has successfully employed zone defenses for years?

the one that coaches for syracuse. sorry for omitting that fun fact. (kige ramsey does not own the copyright to 'fun fact')

did you know that jim boeheim has successfully employed zone defenses for years?

I posted that video a while ago.. again it all depends on how the coach runs it and the players you have. It all really depends my friend