I have a really good team in USA South, but we always have a very difficult time against zone defenses. We run motion offense. If we ran up tempo against a zone, would this be a good strategy, thinking that they opponent may not have time to set up the zone before we get a shot off?

If they run a two three you might try upping the distro to your best perimeter shooters. . .

Posted by chapelhillne on 3/25/2011 7:35:00 AM (view original):
I have a really good team in USA South, but we always have a very difficult time against zone defenses. We run motion offense. If we ran up tempo against a zone, would this be a good strategy, thinking that they opponent may not have time to set up the zone before we get a shot off?

I believe that some real life logic just doesn't carry over to this game but I also believe that running normal or even slow down would be better against a zone because it will rely on more passing to set up a shot and passing is a big part of beating a zone.

Has anyone gotten the impression that motion struggles versus Zone more than the other offenses?  I thought so with my Furman team a few seasons back, but I also did not have many strong perimeter threats on that team.

Posted by chapelhillne on 3/25/2011 7:35:00 AM (view original):
I have a really good team in USA South, but we always have a very difficult time against zone defenses. We run motion offense. If we ran up tempo against a zone, would this be a good strategy, thinking that they opponent may not have time to set up the zone before we get a shot off?

You are thinking about this like this is a real sporting event. Look at it from the point of view of an algorithm and code, 1s and 0s. So uptempo simply shortens the possession and creates more possession. It has nothing to do with how quickly your opponent can set up the zone. If that's the case, then uptempo fast break offense can beat zones every game. 

I have a zone team and when I lose, it's always when my opponent chucks up 25-30 3pt and makes half of them. I think the zone is weak vs. elite guards. 

Posted by tianyi7886 on 3/25/2011 10:27:00 AM (view original):
I have a zone team and when I lose, it's always when my opponent chucks up 25-30 3pt and makes half of them. I think the zone is weak vs. elite guards. 

Thats because most people refuse to run a 3-2 zone

Posted by mullycj on 3/25/2011 11:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tianyi7886 on 3/25/2011 10:27:00 AM (view original):
I have a zone team and when I lose, it's always when my opponent chucks up 25-30 3pt and makes half of them. I think the zone is weak vs. elite guards. 

Thats because most people refuse to run a 3-2 zone

agreed.  and if you know when to run a 3-2 zone, it can be very effective.

Posted by haasdr on 3/25/2011 12:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 3/25/2011 11:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tianyi7886 on 3/25/2011 10:27:00 AM (view original):
I have a zone team and when I lose, it's always when my opponent chucks up 25-30 3pt and makes half of them. I think the zone is weak vs. elite guards. 

Thats because most people refuse to run a 3-2 zone

agreed.  and if you know when to run a 3-2 zone, it can be very effective.

And three point shooting isn't the only reason to play a three two.  There are other benefits in the right situation.

This has nothing to do with zone, but I noticed that your last loss to a zone team was to Eastern U, right?  It looks like your bench was ineffective and wasted a lot of scoring opportunities, while also playing more minutes than necessary due to the pace of the game.  Maybe you might want to increase your starters' minutes against zone? 

Still coming to the conclusion that the key to playing, and beating, a zone lies in the SF.

So, based on posts I have seen I get the impression that the consensus is that in Zone the players are averaged as far as defense:  In the three two or two three, the ones in the three are averaged and the ones in the two.  So for example, in a three two the SF is averaged in with the guards and in the 2 - 3 the SF is averaged in with the posts.    In that case, based on Brandeis's roster, which set should I run out of?  Since Klein is playing down low and has a good defense/ATH and Fontaine has a good BLK, I am almost inclined to go 3 - 2 so that Hays and his 'good'(For this team) defense is averaged in to help the guards?

 

You want to choose 2-3 vs. 3-2 based on your opponents tendencies and strengths/weaknesses on offense.

When you run the 3-2 you give up some rebounding... you appear to be getting out rebounded (by 1 per game) already so something to keep in mind.  But I do like the zone due to some options between going back and forth between 2-3 vs. 3-2... I usually use 3-2 if they tend to focus on guard scoring or 3s and 2-3 for teams that focus on forward scoring and normal amount of 3s...  obviously if they shoot lots of 3s then that also could justify 3-2... but look at the other teams Reb as well and compare to yours.  If you are behind in Reb vs. other team it may justify 2-3....  In sum, I rarely used 3-2.  Generally the zone gives up more rebounds so you must compenstate for that with superior bigs that rebound.  Going against the zone I have found lots of success shooting 3s since I have some good guards.  But I think I have only played below average zone teams anyway so that may be misleading. 

I have wondered that if a person focused on 3-2 that perhaps they would want to find guards that rebound well.... but that won't help you this year.  Also, your def ratings are really low with the exception of one Freshman (who as a result has low IQ).  You will probably struggle on defense no matter what you do this year because of that.  The biggest misconception I sense is that the def rating doesn't matter in zone - which is completely untrue.