uneblinstu's postgame chatter: Vol: 10; ed: 9 - at Michigan St.

[hskr4life]

1 hour ago, LK1 said:

I absolutely hate our 2-3 zone.  It's completely worthless unless you are a morph wizard like Boeheim--it's hardly a 2-3 with all the variations they work with.  We don't have that level of sophistication here with ours, so we shouldn't run it.  

 

But the 1-3-1 has been very disruptive with our length.  We've forced some uncomfortable shots and turnovers with it.  Now, MSU hit a baseline jumper right away, and we never even bothered trying it again.  I looked at it as a positive--everything we had given up to that point was a layup or putback, so at least it forced their center to shoot jump shots.  

 

And, yeah, I agree that Miles hates zone--he's adamant about this.  I just don't get it when it comes to our current roster--we don't have great lateral athletes, but we have good length and skill in addition to straight line speed.  It makes players like Jack and Jordy WAY more useful, and it creates a lot of fast break opportunities out of rebounds.  

 

After seeing our 1-3-1, I wouldn’t mind us running it just as much as man.  Could really help everything including scoring.

[hhcmatt]

4 hours ago, Dead Dog Alley said:

 

It looks like teams have figured out how to attack the 1-3-1 that we play, where we put our post player down low to protect the lane and he doesn't run the baseline.  We've given up a lot of easy open 3s from the corner when we've rolled it out there.

 

It doesn't work nearly as good without Ed back there.

I think we like putting Roby out at the point of the 1-3-1 but wouldn't it make more sense to put him down in the post given that you need his rebounding? (have we put Roby in the post and I've just missed it?)  Did anyone notice how aggressive Jack looked out there finally at the end of the game?

 

How about  a 1-3-1 with

 

              Roby

Jack Copeland Palmer

             Taylor

 

Minnesota isn't really putting a lot of pressure on the ball so I don't think we need a ton of ball handling on offense.

[Fullbacksympathy]

16 hours ago, hhcdimes said:

 

It doesn't work nearly as good without Ed back there.

I think we like putting Roby out at the point of the 1-3-1 but wouldn't it make more sense to put him down in the post given that you need his rebounding? (have we put Roby in the post and I've just missed it?)  Did anyone notice how aggressive Jack looked out there finally at the end of the game?

 

How about  a 1-3-1 with

 

              Roby

Jack Copeland Palmer

             Taylor

 

Minnesota isn't really putting a lot of pressure on the ball so I don't think we need a ton of ball handling on offense.

 

I thought it worked well with Palmer at the top of the key and Watson running the baseline--there isn't a ton of rebounding from that spot and you need a lot of quickness to contest baseline/corner jumpers when the ball is being swung and skipped.  Your rebounding comes primarily from the weakside wing and center.  So, starters would be:

 

           Palmer

Taylor Jordy  Copeland

          Watson

 

^^^ The other nice thing I just realized is that Roby could be subbed in at literally ANY spot of that zone and function just fine.  Ugh.  I really want to see this more now.  It completely ruins pick and roll offenses, which destroy us.  

Edited December 5, 2017 by LK1

[hhcmatt]

6 minutes ago, LK1 said:

 

I thought it worked well with Palmer at the top of the key and Watson running the baseline--there isn't a ton of rebounding from that spot and you need a lot of quickness to contest baseline/corner jumpers when the ball is being swung and skipped.  Your rebounding comes primarily from the weakside wing and center.  So, starters would be:

 

           Palmer

Taylor Jordy  Copeland

          Watson

 

^^^ The other nice thing I just realized is that Roby could be subbed in at literally ANY spot of that zone and function just fine.  Ugh.  I really want to see this more now.  It completely ruins pick and roll offenses, which destroy us.  

 

If we're comfortable enough with Roby and Copeland on the perimeter no reason you couldn't do this

 

           Palmer

Watson Jordy Copeland

           Roby

 

or

 

         Palmer

Roby Jordy Copeland

         Watson

 

[Fullbacksympathy]

3 minutes ago, hhcdimes said:

 

If we're comfortable enough with Roby and Copeland on the perimeter no reason you couldn't do this

 

           Palmer

Watson Jordy Copeland

           Roby

 

or

 

         Palmer

Roby Jordy Copeland

         Watson

 

 

Agree with the bottom one for sure and would love to see that lineup tried out, but the top one would mean Watson is a primary defensive rebounder and he would get killed on the glass when the shot goes up on Copeland's side.  

[atskooc]

When I ran a 1-3-1 (of course, I'm talking about seventh graders here), I wouldn't make the bottom guy cover the entire baseline.  I would have my center take the bottom right corner, and the baseline guy take the bottom left.  Kept my baseline guy from running himself ragged, and it got a guy with length defending the bottom right corner. 

 

It wasn't perfect, but we did some nice things with it.