Man vs. 2-3

[jason2486]

Although some disagree, I felt like our 2-3 zone defense did some good things against Purdue. Going forward, do you like the idea of playing more 2-3 against teams that have really good post players? With our size, athleticism, and length with certain lineups, I believe the zone is a good look when trying to defend teams on the inside. If you can make most teams a jump shooting team, your chances of winning increase greatly. Obviously, we still would have to limit dribble penetration. As a coach, I believe both defenses are great depending on matchups, but when playing teams that will kill you inside, statistically it makes sense to force lower percentage shots.

[Silverbacked1]

I kind of like when teams can mix it up during a game. Didn't Michigan do that against us? If you press a little bit and then throw. a different defense at them it is tough to get going on offense in 30 seconds.

[Huskerpapa]

I like the flexibility associated with playing multiple defenses.  The defenses can be deployed depending upon the game situation.  The problem is that it is difficult to master more than one defense.  I guess in Miles I trust.

[AuroranHusker]

I kind of like when teams can mix it up during a game. Didn't Michigan do that against us? If you press a little bit and then throw. a different defense at them it is tough to get going on offense in 30 seconds.

 

Yes, Michigan did that quite a bit. That's a huge benefit to be able to successfully switch up D's often. Beilein is among the best at it.

[khoock]

This post seems like a good time for an idea I have been thinking about:

 

Why dont we try and go big? Or at least tried it for the Purdue game.

 

I know this seems random and out of place for this seaon's team but I have been reading the Nebrasketball book lately and it got my mind thinking about this. When we made the tourney run a couple years ago, one of the switches Miles made was moving to a bigger lineup. He started Rivers at the four and slid Shavon to the 3 and Petteway to the 2. Obviously they are two completely different teams but hear me out. I am mainly just talking fun but I think there would be some pros to this lineup.

 

1. Webster 6'4 good defender and reliable scorer

2. White 6'7 volume scorer

3. Shields 6'7 his natural/best position

4. Jacobson 6'8 a true power forward who can shoot the 3

5. Hammond 6'10 physically more equipped and a better post defender imo

 

I know the craziest thing is probably having Hammond at the 5 spot, but Phil Beckner just said tonight on their radio show that Hammond has been practicing well lately (which is why he entered the Purdue game so early) and I am not so sure why he was even pulled from the starting lineup to begin with. If you recall, he was pulled just two games after his 7 point and 5 rebound game and 11 point and 10 rebound game against Tennessee. I think that is what really lead to his confidence being shook up. Anyways for the center spot it was either him or Morrow since they both only possess skills for the five spot currently. I went with Hammond because he's bigger and thats kind of the purpose of my post plus I still think Hammond is our best post defender. Then we could move Jacobson to the four where he belongs and could more effectively use his shooting skills. He would also probably be better on offense just from the fact that he is not spending as much energy guarding a taller, heavier, and stronger center. I do not think foul trouble would be a problem because you also have Morrow (5) and McVeigh (4). Shavon gets moved back to the wing where belongs and White gets to play SG. White at the two would be a problem defensively against some players but once again this is just for fun. And if you wanted to maximize the size you could put Webster at the point since he is four inches taller than Watson.

 

This wouldn't have to be a starting line up obviously but I think it would be interesting to try this lineup out. Maybe like versus Rutgers this weekend where we will hopefully be up by 30 again. I'm sure there is a reason Tim Miles doesn't use this lineup and my guess is probably because of defense of White at the 2 and Jacobson/Hammond combo. But I just thought I would throw my idea out there. 

[Dean Smith]

When we at this level, we're not talking about your junior high 2-3. At this point you have straight rotations, long rotations, short rotations, matchup variations, zones that look a lot like man, and zones that trap. And there are various ways to trap out of any zone. And every zone ever invented to this point turns into a 2-3 when the ball gets to the elbow. The question is how you rotate to that, and how you rotate out of that on ball movement. I know this doesn't really address your question, but I think sometime to the general public it can be hard to understand how complicated things can get when running something like a 2-3 when it seems like it should be really simple.

[hhcmatt]

 Then we could move Jacobson to the four where he belongs and could more effectively use his shooting skills. 

 

Wouldn't it be easier for Jacobson to get a jump shot up vs the other team's 5? 

[basketballjones]

When we at this level, we're not talking about your junior high 2-3. At this point you have straight rotations, long rotations, short rotations, matchup variations, zones that look a lot like man, and zones that trap. And there are various ways to trap out of any zone. And every zone ever invented to this point turns into a 2-3 when the ball gets to the elbow. The question is how you rotate to that, and how you rotate out of that on ball movement. I know this doesn't really address your question, but I think sometime to the general public it can be hard to understand how complicated things can get when running something like a 2-3 when it seems like it should be really simple.

Correct, Dean.

However my counter to this would be - why even play a zone if you're going to get that complicated out of it? Just play a switching man with a lot of gap responsibilities. If you want to trap, you're still going to have to rotate around it and closeout to the ball.

I would think with our size issues defending the post and rebounding, that we'd really struggle to do those things out of a zone... But who knows!