CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

BYU's zone is an embarrassment

by BroncoBot · 11/27/2011

Advertisement
B
BroncoBot
That's all.
B
birdie702
declocoug wrote:
That's all.


Wisconsin hitting 3s from everywhere...not looking good for us.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">
B
BroncoBot
Sorry zone defense, I shouldn't have singled you out so early. Let's complete the thought. BYU's defense (man/zone/whatever it is they are running) in 2nd half is an embarrassment
Q
Qman
we just miss too many assignments.
C
Cougs_Rule
Its like watching the Jazz. BAd perimeter D.
Advertisement
G
Gunk
Winder better get an ear full as well as Cusic. Our guards were horrible tonight on D.



I don't get Rose in this game. Rogers and Harrison come in, shut Wisconsin down and put up points and they ride the bench in the second half. Poor coaching. Against perimeter shooters Rogers and Harrison should be in as they have better length. Zylstra didn't belong on the court tonight.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">
C
cgharring
Generally one plays a zone to do one of two things.



1. To stop speedy guards from penetrating.

2. To stop a dominant big man inside.



The way to get a defense out of a zone is busting 3's on them.



So that is a general rule of thumb, so I don't understand the mind set of going to the zone against Wisconsin. It doesn't suit the matchup, other than they had one speedy guard, but with just one guard we can just play a help defense in a man to man. This is where we miss Dave Rice.



But don't give up on this zone. It is a very creative and a very very good defense. This defense will allow us to compete against some very good teams. It just wasn't the right matchup to play it against. This zone is the best x's and o's move I have seen by Dave Rose (not sure it was him).
I
IowaCougar
I was only able to listen to the game, so I had to depend on Wrubell's description - but it seemed from his comments that most of the 3s were being scored against our man defense, and things actually improved with the zone. The hot start at the beginning of the game was all against man. Am I remembering right, or do I just have a brain cloud (maybe I just need to jump into a volcano)?
S
scott715
He just needed to switch more between the 2 defenses.
G
Gunk
IowaCougar wrote:
I was only able to listen to the game, so I had to depend on Wrubell's description - but it seemed from his comments that most of the 3s were being scored against our man defense, and things actually improved with the zone. The hot start at the beginning of the game was all against man. Am I remembering right, or do I just have a brain cloud (maybe I just need to jump into a volcano)?


That's right. Wisconsin was killing our man-to-man defense. We switched to a zone and it took Wisconsin several minutes and a time out or two to figure out how to exploit it.



Once they figured it out, though, we didn't make any new adjustments. In-game adjustments continue to be our achilles heal.



We just need to be a bit more disciplined. We have some young players at key positions, so it will take a bit for them to get into a groove.
Advertisement
S
SpiffCoug
I'm perfectly fine with our perimeter defense. Our opponents are shooting .318 (47-148) from behind the arc against us. Wisconsin was insanely hot from behind the arc (13-24). If you take out that game, opponents are shooting .274 (34-124) from three.



Wisconsin is a good team that made shots. That's what good shooting teams do. It's what we did to SDSU and Gonzaga last year.
B
BroncoBot
SpiffCoug wrote:
I'm perfectly fine with our perimeter defense. Our opponents are shooting .318 (47-148) from behind the arc against us. Wisconsin was insanely hot from behind the arc (13-24). If you take out that game, opponents are shooting .274 (34-124) from three.



Wisconsin is a good team that made shots. That's what good shooting teams do. It's what we did to SDSU and Gonzaga last year.

Ha, except i don't know if those teams know how to deal with a zone, and I think BYU's zone could have done MUCH better at rotating against Wisc. Those stats are deceiving. AND, it wasn't only BYU's zone against Wisconsin. Every defense that BYU threw at the Badgers was UGLY. It was a bad game for BYU's defense
S
SpiffCoug
declocoug wrote:
I'm perfectly fine with our perimeter defense. Our opponents are shooting .318 (47-148) from behind the arc against us. Wisconsin was insanely hot from behind the arc (13-24). If you take out that game, opponents are shooting .274 (34-124) from three.



Wisconsin is a good team that made shots. That's what good shooting teams do. It's what we did to SDSU and Gonzaga last year.

Ha, except i don't know if those teams know how to deal with a zone, and I think BYU's zone could have done MUCH better at rotating against Wisc. Those stats are deceiving. AND, it wasn't only BYU's zone against Wisconsin. Every defense that BYU threw at the Badgers was UGLY. It was a bad game for BYU's defense

Then it wasn't BYU's zone that was an embarrassment that game. We looked bad because Wisconsin was that good. Those stats also suggest that our defense either fluky that game (since we were much better in every other game) or that Wisconsin is that good since no other team had done what they did offensively to us.
B
BroncoBot
SpiffCoug wrote:
SpiffCoug wrote:
I'm perfectly fine with our perimeter defense. Our opponents are shooting .318 (47-148) from behind the arc against us. Wisconsin was insanely hot from behind the arc (13-24). If you take out that game, opponents are shooting .274 (34-124) from three.



Wisconsin is a good team that made shots. That's what good shooting teams do. It's what we did to SDSU and Gonzaga last year.

Ha, except i don't know if those teams know how to deal with a zone, and I think BYU's zone could have done MUCH better at rotating against Wisc. Those stats are deceiving. AND, it wasn't only BYU's zone against Wisconsin. Every defense that BYU threw at the Badgers was UGLY. It was a bad game for BYU's defense

Then it wasn't BYU's zone that was an embarrassment that game. We looked bad because Wisconsin was that good. Those stats also suggest that our defense either fluky that game (since we were much better in every other game) or that Wisconsin is that good since no other team had done what they did offensively to us.

Combo of all those thing. BYU isn't as good, yet, as I thought they were. Wisconsin is real. BYU's defense shined against poor to moderate competition. Melted when its been put to the test.



In the third or fouth post of this thread I acknowledged that is wasn't just the zone. It was just the defense in general that looked bad. (I actually apologized to the zone for judging it a little early.)
M
Mars
SpiffCoug wrote:
I'm perfectly fine with our perimeter defense. Our opponents are shooting .318 (47-148) from behind the arc against us.

BYU's Strength of Schedule is 303, out of 330 teams...
Advertisement
S
SpiffCoug
Mars wrote:
I'm perfectly fine with our perimeter defense. Our opponents are shooting .318 (47-148) from behind the arc against us.

BYU's Strength of Schedule is 303, out of 330 teams...

I hate this argument. What else can BYU do? If they play well, they're not good because they're opponents are bad. By this logic, we shouldn't have hammered BYU after their game against Wisconsin, because Wisconsin is really good.
T
tmoney35
Mars wrote:
BYU's Strength of Schedule is 303, out of 330 teams...


Really? I know we've played some awful teams, but you'd think playing one top-10 team and a couple others with winning records (Oregon and Nevada) would at least get into the middle of the pack SOS
S
Schmoe
I'm showing us at 271, where did you get 303, Mars?
M
Mars
Schmoe wrote:
I'm showing us at 271, where did you get 303, Mars?

RealTimeRPI last night, after the Oregon win, before the Oregon-win update.

I'm also seeing 271 there now (and an RPI of 144).



RPI 160, SOS 288 here: http://statsheet.com/mcb/teams/brigham-young" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RPIforecast has RPI-146, SOS-273. http://www.rpiforecast.com/teams/Brigham%20Young.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sagarin's BYU SOS is 287 currently: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/bkc1112.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ken Pomeroy has a better SOS... 236/241. http://kenpom.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



The good news? RealTime's Power Ratings, rpiforecast season predictor, Sagarin's Predictor, and KenPom's efficiency rankings all have us between 20th and 49th. Which would make us a strong Dance bubble-team, same as Gonzaga and St. Mary's. So 3 WCC bids if all goes right.
G
Gunk
Mars wrote:
I'm showing us at 271, where did you get 303, Mars?

RealTimeRPI last night, after the Oregon win, before the Oregon-win update.

I'm also seeing 271 there now (and an RPI of 144).



RPI 160, SOS 288 here: http://statsheet.com/mcb/teams/brigham-young" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RPIforecast has RPI-146, SOS-273. http://www.rpiforecast.com/teams/Brigham%20Young.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sagarin's BYU SOS is 287 currently: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/bkc1112.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ken Pomeroy has a better SOS... 236/241. http://kenpom.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



The good news? RealTime's Power Ratings, rpiforecast season predictor, Sagarin's Predictor, and KenPom's efficiency rankings all have us between 20th and 49th. Which would make us a strong Dance bubble-team, same as Gonzaga and St. Mary's. So 3 WCC bids if all goes right.


If the Pac12 continues to stink it up they'll be a two bid conference. With BYU gone from the MWC there's a good chance the MWC will also only be a two bid team.



Hopefull the WCC will pick up one of those extra bids and send three.
Page 1 of 2
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.