For guys who have played both, what have you had more success with?  Now, I understand there are different players in different systems. But, for somebody who has played both, generally what have you had more success with?  I am on the fence of starting my program in playing one or the other, and not sure which way I want to go!!  Thanks!

I think Man and Press are of similar quality, and Zone is a notch below them both.  It's entirely possible that I just haven't been able to "figure out" the Zone in the new engine, but I had underachieving teams when I tried it.  Of course you'll see people doing very well with Zone, but I have to wonder if it's in spite of their defense.  Just my opinion though.

I do think Man is the most consistent and predictable of the defenses, so you really can't go wrong with that choice.

I love zone - but MTM is the better defense (depends on your teams current situation as well what you should run). I've had more success with zone but not because it's better than MTM. I don't know if other coaches agree but I kind of look at the defenses like rock, paper, scissors. Zone beats press - Man beats zone - and Press beats man. Of course this isn't always the case but if you look at the strengths of each D - maybe you'll see where I'm coming from.


Zone beats press because guys stay fresh longer and don't suffer the fatigue penalties other d's would

Man beats zone because its a better def. RB def

Press beats man because guys playing man get tired at a faster rate than a zone and play into the hands of a good press team.

I'm not saying this is a standard: I know many will disagree but this is how I losely look at the different D's in HD.

I've been running the zone my first 4 seasons and I don't have a reason to complain yet. I do like how it's able to "hide" a bad defender for me cause I feel like that gives me an opportunity to recruit some players that the more successful coaches wouldn't go for because they want to have a team full of good defenders. Obviously that's the right idea but I feel like early on if I can get some really good players who slip through to me because of a poor defense rating then it's still worth it for me if I have 4 good defenders he will play with. So I would say early on it's probably more beneficial to recruiting to play the zone early on to help get some good players into your program.

When I get to a point where most of the recruits I'm pulling in are good-great defenders I may switch to man, but even then, I'm still kind of partial to the zone though, I like the versatility it gives me and game planning, I like that it keeps my team fresh, and I like that I can still play good defense with a poor defender on the floor. That's my argument for it, at least early on.

zone is great when you don't have depth or have a big difference between your stars and other core players. by allowing you to play guys 30+ mpg in close matches, zone lets you make more of your stars than any set. however, with good depth, zone is the worst at taking advantage of that depth, although some guys have had success running uptempo zone in those situations.

what this means to me is that at the championship level, zone is a tough sell, because usually you have more breadth and depth of quality on those teams. but at lower levels, it can be effective, especially in d1 where the chance of taking walkons is way higher. ive had good success running zone in low d1, where winning a title is not the goal, but i needed to make the most of the decent guys i was able to get.

What about a press to a zone defensive scheme?  Anybody found success with that?  Because with that I feel like you can take advantage of your depth AND still be able to hide a defender or two in a rotation.

Man to man yields lower oFG%.  It also allows you to put your best defender where you want him.  I have been more successful with my man teams than my zone team but I am not sure it's because of the defense we play.

Posted by jaymc2007 on 2/19/2014 1:33:00 PM (view original):
What about a press to a zone defensive scheme?  Anybody found success with that?  Because with that I feel like you can take advantage of your depth AND still be able to hide a defender or two in a rotation.

This issue with this is allocation of minutes.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 2/19/2014 1:35:00 PM (view original):
Man to man yields lower oFG%.  It also allows you to put your best defender where you want him.  I have been more successful with my man teams than my zone team but I am not sure it's because of the defense we play.

I have zone ran on my phelan team I think it works great keeps players fresh, you can really manipulate it to work many different ways...and Its very effective if used right and if you have a good balance of players......I routinely keep superior teams under their shooting percentage. As of right now I have the second lowest shooting percentage against me in d3. the first is a man team....I really dont know more people dont use it...

I've switched to mostly zone now.  I still don't play it well, but I think it has so much flexibility and the fatigue aspect helps.  Early on I played all man, I think it was simpler to recruit and implement.  Press teams beat up on me.  

I was looking the other day and, probably not surprisingly, man teams make up most of the final fours (more press at D3, but still lots on man there).

I think that a really well built press team should be able to compete at a high level at D1, but I definitely agree with gil that at low D1 it's a great option.

The problem with press at high D1 is that it relies on having a better ATH/SPD than your opponent.   At the upper echelon of d1, EVERYONE has the same ATH/SPD rating.  There's no advantage.

Oops, sorry, I meant ZONE at high D1, not press.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 2/19/2014 2:22:00 PM (view original):
The problem with press at high D1 is that it relies on having a better ATH/SPD than your opponent.   At the upper echelon of d1, EVERYONE has the same ATH/SPD rating.  There's no advantage.

i have to disagree, this is not at all the problem with press at high d1. you don't need more ath/spd than your opponent in the press - that is one of the longest standing misconceptions in the game, IMO. its simply that you need good spd/def and to a lesser extent ath (because the 1-3 guys are the ones who really drive the turnovers. or at least, they used to, im starting to wonder if seble changed that when he rebalanced press).

the problem with press in high d1 is you need great depth to avoid a fatigue/foul death spiral. in high d1 with the recruiting competition and EEs, its very hard to guarantee a full rotation, and even a full 10 man is often going to suffer fatigue/foul issues. also, prestige losses are more significant at high d1, where its not just the quality of your up years, but also the quality of your down years, that really matter. there is no better way to shoot yourself in the foot than have a short rotation press team in d1 :)

i was 12 deep at kansas this year and it made a huge difference. we still lost in the 2nd round as a 2 seed but the other team was way more talented. our top guy was 813 to start the season, they had like the 5 highest rated guys between the two teams. wasn't surprised to lose at all- our guys were all good and competitive, but we lacked that extra flair that usually helps you win championships, and their team even as a 7 seed was clearly more talented. don't get me wrong - i think we could beat anyone, including whomever is #1 this year (its really unclear), a really healthy % of the time, and i mostly attribute that to the press. its just that i screwed recruiting and have a lot of good and even some very good players, but not the elite types you see on the elite d1 teams. we played a bad game vs that better team and only lost by 5, which is a miracle if you looked at the stat line, where we got destroyed utterly... also we only lost 4 games all season, two by 1 pt and 1 by 2pts. it was a quality over achieving team, because of the press, and the depth that the press is able to take advantage of.

for what its worth its also my first press program in d1 in 3 years (that i lead coach myself at least), so im not totally up on the situation, but i very strongly disagree with the superior requirement on ath/spd, always have. my first 6 d1 titles including the 5/9 came with press and one team in particular was way behind on ath/spd/def to the big boys.

Pound for pound I'd say man is superior.  But the two main benefits to zone is that you don't need to be deep, and your starters players play more minutes compared to any other defense.  I often play 9 deep with zone, I've even gone 8 deep, with no major fatigue issues.  That lets you focus on getting quality recruits over quantity.  That is especially helpful if you are not an elite D1 team.

So a D3 level where I want to get about 10 guys some minutes, it is looking like a Man to Man D?