ISUr vs DePaul

[mathewson10]

I do not understand why ISUr does not play a man-to-man defense (other than the 2 reasons listed above). I believe it minimizes a couple of their strengths: great athleticism and great rebounding. Having both of those things makes a zone better, but it also makes playing a smothering man defense and destroying teams on the backboards possible. It seems like Muller is choosing to mask a weakness (poor team defense related to lack of experience together) instead of accentuating a strength (quickness and rebounding).

It reminds me of Coach Turgeon. Even in 2005 and 2006 when WSU had some really good teams, we would often hear things like "they went small so we had to go small." Never made sense to me. They went small and you have an all-league center, jam it down their throats. But I digress.

ISUr has a big man (Lynch) that prevents teams from attacking the rim. He is 8th in the nation in blocks. He keeps teams out of the lane & forces outside shots. In general, the further away the shot the lower the shooting percentage. Seems like a solid philosophy.

[rlh04d]

I think not holding on to the lead at home against VCU could end up burning the redbirds when everything is said and done. I do think if we can get one or two at home against WSU and/or UNI along with a record that finishes solidly in the top 3 of the conference with some separation, there's a solid chance to get 3 in. We seem to have a more balanced effort, so the loss of akoon-Purcell doesn't bother me too much. Just need some guys to pick up the slack and mature a little faster as players.

A win at Murray State would be nice, but the biggest difference I see in the birds this year is that they have a lot of fight in them and can hang and challenge/win games on the road. It's something we aren't used to seeing, so hopefully we see more of the same once conference play starts.

I still see WSU as the best team in this conference, but if we can challenge UNI for 2nd, i will be happy and hopefully we can end this NCAA tourney drought once and for all. Get in and you never know what can happen depending on matchups. The zone defense is very solid. We do a nice job of not letting teams in the interior. We will have trouble against good shooting teams unless we can play better man, which we don't go to that often. The game changer for this game was installing a solid press. We aren't VCU good at it, but apparently solid enough to create some turnovers when needed. It might be the difference this year in us beating good perimeter shooting teams. We don't go to it often, but it seems like we have the size and speed to execute it well. Which also kind of surprises me why we aren't that good at man.

A win at Murray State wouldn't be "nice," it's likely essential for IlSU to have any shot at an at-large bid. They're already 1-3 against RPI top 100 teams, and Murray State is the last opportunity out of conference. Lose that game and now you're a team with one good win in the noncon, and with only limited opportunities against a ranked WSU and UNI (and possibly Evansville) to get top 100 wins in conference.

Can't imagine an IlSt team with 20-22 wins, 50-75 RPI, and three top 100 wins getting an at-large bid.

[Cdizzle]

I do not understand why ISUr does not play a man-to-man defense (other than the 2 reasons listed above). I believe it minimizes a couple of their strengths: great athleticism and great rebounding. Having both of those things makes a zone better, but it also makes playing a smothering man defense and destroying teams on the backboards possible. It seems like Muller is choosing to mask a weakness (poor team defense related to lack of experience together) instead of accentuating a strength (quickness and rebounding).

It reminds me of Coach Turgeon. Even in 2005 and 2006 when WSU had some really good teams, we would often hear things like "they went small so we had to go small." Never made sense to me. They went small and you have an all-league center, jam it down their throats. But I digress.

ISUr has a big man (Lynch) that prevents teams from attacking the rim. He is 8th in the nation in blocks. He keeps teams out of the lane & forces outside shots.

Sort of. I'm not trying to hate on ISUr. I actually think they are decent. My point is that I believe they could be BETTER, especially long-term, if they were playing a man defense. Lynch is a great defender, and a tremendous shot-blocker. That is at least as useful in a man defense. It let's your guards gamble, and hides their mistakes.

In general, the further away the shot the lower the shooting percentage. Seems like a solid philosophy.

Again, sort of. Except that at a certain distance the rules start allowing for additional points per make.

For instance, ISUr is only giving up 0.907 PPS on 2-pointers (this would be good, but for simplicity of this point I didn't include FTM, which would basically wreck this efficiency because ISUr fouls a lot), but is giving up (1.13) PPS on 3-pointers (this is not good). ISUr is giving up points at the 3-pt line that I'm contending they don't have to be. Add in that I think ISUr is giving up the chance to go from a good to a great rebounding team and I personally think the cons outweigh the pros.

ISUr ranks in the 160s in both points per game allowed and opponent FG%, and 197th in opponent effective FG%. I guess there might be a difference between Jim's zone defense at Syracuse and Dan's zone defense at ISUr, if you still want to make that comparison.

[Wufan]

Man and zone are different philosophies. Most coaches, most of the time, run a man to man as that improves defensive rebounding and decreases opposition outside shooting percentage. Those that play zone are usually compensating for a weakness, but their is the occasional coach that uses the zone as the prime d.

[Bmarq04]

I do not understand why ISUr does not play a man-to-man defense (other than the 2 reasons listed above). I believe it minimizes a couple of their strengths: great athleticism and great rebounding. Having both of those things makes a zone better, but it also makes playing a smothering man defense and destroying teams on the backboards possible. It seems like Muller is choosing to mask a weakness (poor team defense related to lack of experience together) instead of accentuating a strength (quickness and rebounding).

It reminds me of Coach Turgeon. Even in 2005 and 2006 when WSU had some really good teams, we would often hear things like "they went small so we had to go small." Never made sense to me. They went small and you have an all-league center, jam it down their throats. But I digress.

ISUr has a big man (Lynch) that prevents teams from attacking the rim. He is 8th in the nation in blocks. He keeps teams out of the lane & forces outside shots.

Sort of. I'm not trying to hate on ISUr. I actually think they are decent. My point is that I believe they could be BETTER, especially long-term, if they were playing a man defense. Lynch is a great defender, and a tremendous shot-blocker. That is at least as useful in a man defense. It let's your guards gamble, and hides their mistakes.

In general, the further away the shot the lower the shooting percentage. Seems like a solid philosophy.

Again, sort of. Except that at a certain distance the rules start allowing for additional points per make.

For instance, ISUr is only giving up 0.907 PPS on 2-pointers (this would be good, but for simplicity of this point I didn't include FTM, which would basically wreck this efficiency because ISUr fouls a lot), but is giving up (1.13) PPS on 3-pointers (this is not good). ISUr is giving up points at the 3-pt line that I'm contending they don't have to be. Add in that I think ISUr is giving up the chance to go from a good to a great rebounding team and I personally think the cons outweigh the pros.

ISUr ranks in the 160s in both points per game allowed and opponent FG%, and 197th in opponent effective FG%. I guess there might be a difference between Jim's zone defense at Syracuse and Dan's zone defense at ISUr, if you still want to make that comparison.

We do foul a lot. That has always been one reason I've wondered if we play zone. Dan likes the guys to be aggressive on D and I can't help but wonder if they foul too much to play a good man, where zone can minimize some of that.

I personally love a nasty aggressive man to man, but I think we foul too much to do that.

[Rollbird5]

I wish we would switch it up more during games to keep the offense off guard. Pick certain times to go man for a couple minutes then go back to zone keep the other team from getting a rhythm

[Wufan]

I wish we would switch it up more during games to keep the offense off guard. Pick certain times to go man for a couple minutes then go back to zone keep the other team from getting a rhythm

That almost always seems to cause problems for the opposition. I like that as well.

[mathewson10]

Sort of. I'm not trying to hate on ISUr. I actually think they are decent. My point is that I believe they could be BETTER, especially long-term, if they were playing a man defense. Lynch is a great defender, and a tremendous shot-blocker. That is at least as useful in a man defense. It let's your guards gamble, and hides their mistakes.

This team fouls too much to play straight man. Plus, man allows for teams to take Lynch out of position based on who he is guarding. The zone ISUr plays is not a stand around hands up zone. It's very active & at times puts a lot of pressure on the oppositions guards but it also has allowed for some uncontested at the wings. I feel the more this group plays together the better the rotations will be. I agree long-term it would be better to be able to play more man. Maybe with this weaker part of the schedule before conference play, man defense can be used more but with the two injuries we just had I don't know if they will go away from the zone.

Again, sort of. Except that at a certain distance the rules start allowing for additional points per make.

For instance, ISUr is only giving up 0.907 PPS on 2-pointers (this would be good, but for simplicity of this point I didn't include FTM, which would basically wreck this efficiency because ISUr fouls a lot), but is giving up (1.13) PPS on 3-pointers (this is not good). ISUr is giving up points at the 3-pt line that I'm contending they don't have to be. Add in that I think ISUr is giving up the chance to go from a good to a great rebounding team and I personally think the cons outweigh the pros.

ISUr ranks in the 160s in both points per game allowed and opponent FG%, and 197th in opponent effective FG%. I guess there might be a difference between Jim's zone defense at Syracuse and Dan's zone defense at ISUr, if you still want to make that comparison.

I feel the stats you mentioned are currently skewed. Teams have been making a surprising large amount of 3's. Law of averages say that number will decrease as the year goes by. There is no way guys are going to continue to make 7 of 9 3 pointers (or more) in a game.

I was not comparing Jim Boeheim to Dan Muller. That would just be silly. I just felt a blanket statement was made about playing a zone means a coach is not good at coaching.

[Cdizzle]

A team that plays zone and then is confused by a "surprisingly" large number of 3s made against is just, well, confused. Even if it has been an anomaly, I think that's another reason not to rely on the zone. You put yourself at risk of a crazy shooting night by an opponent moreso than m2m defense does.

And if ISUr fouls too much to play man defense, whose fault is that? Who is the person in charge of teaching them how to play defense without fouling? It doesn't make sense to bash people questioning Muller's ability to teach solid m-2-m defense and then turn around and give a very good example of poor coaching of m-2-m principles.

I've seen ISUr play a few times. Their zone is effective. They are athletic enough to use it disruptively. But I think it would be even more of a weapon if they used it for 10-15 minutes a game instead of 35. That would also let them absolutely dominate people on the glass.

It will be interesting to see how it shakes out going forward. I think everyone agrees that ISUr has the talent to be pretty good, we're just disagreeing on the best method for utilizing that talent.

Regardless of the method, keep piling up the wins. I'm already way more excited about league play than I ever was last year. Last year was just waiting until March. There should be some decent battles at the top this year.

[isuredbirds92]

Last year, we were forced to play a zone because of our lack of depth and size. I assumed this year that we'd see a lot more man to man, judging by the combo of quickness and size that we have. However, I do love our zone this year. We have the length and athleticism that is very effective in that type of defense. From watching just about every game this year, it seems the problem has been more mental lapses by our team. I think it comes from our players not being used to playing zone every game, and I think they will only get better as the year goes by.

As for the amount of fouls, I think they stem from the previously mentioned mental mistakes. We get out of position and aren't able to get back in time, so we end up fouling. Save most of Reggie's, which are just mostly from attempted blocks. I would like to see this team play more man to man, but I don't hate our defense the way it is. Personally, I think we should use our fullcourt press much more often. It seems to be very effective when we use it. I'd like to see us press for more like 10 minutes a game rather than 2. I think we have the depth and athleticism to do it.