Reply With Quote
Riley > Popovich
It was interesting to watch Miami negate small ball by staying big and using a zone defense. Would that have worked for us or are we too porous with the zone?
Riley > Popovich
It wouldn't have worked if Dallas could hit their shots.
I refuse to believe that the Heat can guard three point shooting better than the Spurs...
There was one posession where Dallas missed 5 shots in one possession. I'm not sure that's great defense, or just bad luck on Dallas' part.
Water fountain > Stout.....
The Heat got physical with Dallas; something San Antonio never really did on a consistent basis.
It's called walking up to the bully and punching square in the jaw and saying, "MoFo if you ever come around my lunch money again I'll …"
Yep, the more physical you get with Dirk, the more he shrinks. Too bad we couldn't figure that one out.
I started a thread in here saying that the Spurs should have tried a zone defense. Key word is TRY. They never did as far as I know. They didn't get physical enough in my eyes, but I'm just a fan.
Pop doesn't implement a zone defense. He prefers man to man. It makes it fougher for players to score (for the most part) when you do that. A zone defense is beatable when you have a good shooting team like Dallas because Dallas will simply shoot over the top of it.
And they had a ton of wide ass open looks last nite and couldn't knock 'em down.
So they had an off shooting night. I didn't say that they were a 75% fg team.
It's basketball 101.....to beat a zone you simply shoot over the top. A zone stops penetrations but if the opponent is shooting lights out against your zone defense, then you have to start contending the shooters.
That's why Pop doesn't like running zone defenses. Most NBA teams have decent shooters and if you let them spot up on a zone defense, they will burn you. When Dallas went to a zone last night, DWade and company went off on them. When Dallas played man defense, those shots were harder to hit for the Heat.
You want a good example of why a man defense works look at Dirk's stat line from lat night.
I think zone has a place in NBA defenses but only sparingly. It's good to mix things up and give the opposing team different looks every now and then.
For teams that don't shoot well from outside, like Denver, it works well. Not so well for teams like Dallas, Phoenix.
And let's be honest here, in the NBA there really isn't a zone defense in traditional terms. There simply isn't any standing still, per se, when a player is in a defensive posture.
Great post.The Heat got physical with Dallas; something San Antonio never really did on a consistent basis.
It's called walking up to the bully and punching square in the jaw and saying, "MoFo if you ever come around my lunch money again I'll …"
he had no problem with it against new jersey in 03-04. of course, look how that turned out.
mavs come kiss my legs!! hahhaha!!
The Nets were not a good shooting team. Even now, I'd run zone on them alot to get VC to turn chucker again.
In addition to the obvious shooting over a zone..you should attack a zone by moving the ball around and then hit the cutter flashing to open area. You have to move the zone, then attack it in the seams. There are different pockets, depending on the formation used.
The Spurs did try zone a few times but it failed basically every time. The Spurs had enough trouble rebounding with their 2 Bigs in there during the 2nd half of the season. A zone makes it all the more difficult to control the defensive boards. Miami has had better success with it because of the 2 out front usually includes Walker or Haslem, with quick feet for 6-8"/6-9" guys. Miami doesn't run zone the majority of the time, however.
Last edited by Solid D; 06-16-2006 at 12:16 PM.
Plus, you tend to get outrebounded when you play zone.
The Spurs were getting outrebounded as it was already.
The best way to beat a zone is attack the basket.
Dallas missed so many open shots last night it was riDIRKulous. I didn't see jack from the Heat D really compared to any other game...
The Spurs were playing man to man against Dallas. They got beat. Not by a lot though. I was suggesting a zone back then because of the way they were getting to the basket. The Spurs had their so-called small lineup and therefore Dallas took advantage by going to the basket as much as they could. They did a good job of it. A very good job. That's why I suggested a zone.
That zone in my opinion would had made it a little bit harded for them to get to the basket. Dallas knew that the Spurs didn't have Rasho or Nazr in the game to block their shots and took advantage. A zone defense from time to time would have been a good way to help stop it.
Then why waste money bringing in Jim Boeheim (sp?) down in the Virgin Islands?
It would have helped to have Hakim Warrick as part of the package.Then why waste money bringing in Jim Boeheim (sp?) down in the Virgin Islands?
euro teams usually switch to zone for short time to test the opposing team.
if the team breaks it couple of times, they switch back to man-to-man
on the other hand if they start choking on shooting... (see USA NT in olympics)
Well, it's hard to say that running past 'man' defenders for layups aren't higher percentage shots than 3 pts.
At one game Dallas was shooting something like 75% for the half and that was against our vaunted "man" defense. That 75% was from shooting over the defense, it was from breaking it down with a crew of swift(er) players taking it to the basket.
Shooting teams like the Mavs tend to choke in big games when they have to rely on jumpers.
It could have been a nice change of pace that allowed the Spurs to play Nazr. And the Spurs have used the zone effectively in the past.
Hard to ever second guess Pop but . . .
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
