I use press thinking about switching

I wouldn't do it. Zone has too many weaknesses.

I guess you could make it work if you wanted to just make it to the tournament, but you aren't likely to win any championships using it.

It's very inconsistent and very ineffective against the better teams.

Posted by thewizard17 on 7/14/2017 10:23:00 PM (view original):
I wouldn't do it. Zone has too many weaknesses.

I guess you could make it work if you wanted to just make it to the tournament, but you aren't likely to win any championships using it.

It's very inconsistent and very ineffective against the better teams.

Could not disagree more.

When recruited for properly it's extremely effective. Because of all of the nuances that come with zone I think coaches tend to shy away, especially at D3. Beating a very good zone team is harder than beating a very good press team (at D3), in my opinion.

I have won a title at D3 and D2 with Zone.

I like it a lot and enjoy the flexibility of it when it comes to recruiting. It requires a little more team planning than man to man or press, though. Trying to balance a groups defensive ratings is harder than juggling a collection of individuals.

I don't find the zone inconsistent or ineffective.

Trenton I sent you a site mail, thanks everyone for their opinions. I do see dominant teams in D3 use press or man to man. That's why I was wondering if you can be successful with zone. I'm trying to get into a defense that doesn't rely on speed and stamina so much.

2-3 requires speed from the PG/SG

the 3-2 lets you get away with slower SG's

Posted by raider45638 on 7/14/2017 10:51:00 PM (view original):
Trenton I sent you a site mail, thanks everyone for their opinions. I do see dominant teams in D3 use press or man to man. That's why I was wondering if you can be successful with zone. I'm trying to get into a defense that doesn't rely on speed and stamina so much.

Your last sentence is the trap I feel too many coaches fall into when recruiting for zone. If you got a stud with 90+ stamina they could easily play 35+ minutes a game-who wouldn't want that? I think too many coaches feel zone allows them to recruit inferior players because they can "hide" them, but I've always felt you're hurting yourself more than helping in that case. You only need 8-10 guys at a time, so take walk ons and use your extra resources to fight for really good players.

Posted by darnoc29099 on 7/14/2017 10:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 7/14/2017 10:23:00 PM (view original):
I wouldn't do it. Zone has too many weaknesses.

I guess you could make it work if you wanted to just make it to the tournament, but you aren't likely to win any championships using it.

It's very inconsistent and very ineffective against the better teams.

Could not disagree more.

When recruited for properly it's extremely effective. Because of all of the nuances that come with zone I think coaches tend to shy away, especially at D3. Beating a very good zone team is harder than beating a very good press team (at D3), in my opinion.

Would you say it's more effective in 3.0 due to the fact that if you have a roster of 3-3-3-0, 3 of the 4 years you're working with 6 open scholarships, which allows you to recruit better players? Or was this effective in 2.0 as well?

I'm also thinking that if most everyone is playing man to man defense, and there is about 8-10% of the human coaches playing zone, that probably makes it easier to recruit all the zone preference guys.

Zone is good if you want to keep your players rested and keeps you out of foul trouble. However, I think excellent man to man defense with good stamina does that anyway. The cons are it allows three point shooting and offensive rebounds and it's seems soft against good passing teams. A team with a balanced offense with even distro also seems to shred the zone.

Posted by thewizard17 on 7/15/2017 1:36:00 AM (view original):
I'm also thinking that if most everyone is playing man to man defense, and there is about 8-10% of the human coaches playing zone, that probably makes it easier to recruit all the zone preference guys.

Zone is good if you want to keep your players rested and keeps you out of foul trouble. However, I think excellent man to man defense with good stamina does that anyway. The cons are it allows three point shooting and offensive rebounds and it's seems soft against good passing teams. A team with a balanced offense with even distro also seems to shred the zone.

I should have clarified my statements were related to division 3 specifically. That said, D3 is where you found the least offensively balanced teams because of the constraints on recruiting (at least in 2.0, I haven't really paid much attention to D3 in 3.0).

Regarding your 3-3-3-0 question and the zone preference, I'm fairly convinced the offensive/defensive sets carry the least amount of weight of all the preferences. Secondly, maintaining any sort of class structure in 3.0 (and having a good team) is extremely difficult given how signings work now.

A few years ago there was a time in D3 where zone teams were winning championships left and right. I *think* it was shortly after the huge zone thread by gillispie came out that explained how zone worked. That was also the time period D3 Wooden was stacked and the top D3 world (before the reigns went to Naismith) and zone teams won something like 5 out of 6 titles in a row. Again, a well-constructed zone team is extremely difficult to beat at D3, even with a great press team.

Last, the 3-2 zone defense is hands down the BEST defense against 3-pt shooting in this game and there isn't a close second. And the more you go (+) with a 3-2, the tougher it is to hit from behind the arc.

Posted by darnoc29099 on 7/15/2017 9:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 7/15/2017 1:36:00 AM (view original):
I'm also thinking that if most everyone is playing man to man defense, and there is about 8-10% of the human coaches playing zone, that probably makes it easier to recruit all the zone preference guys.

Zone is good if you want to keep your players rested and keeps you out of foul trouble. However, I think excellent man to man defense with good stamina does that anyway. The cons are it allows three point shooting and offensive rebounds and it's seems soft against good passing teams. A team with a balanced offense with even distro also seems to shred the zone.

I should have clarified my statements were related to division 3 specifically. That said, D3 is where you found the least offensively balanced teams because of the constraints on recruiting (at least in 2.0, I haven't really paid much attention to D3 in 3.0).

Regarding your 3-3-3-0 question and the zone preference, I'm fairly convinced the offensive/defensive sets carry the least amount of weight of all the preferences. Secondly, maintaining any sort of class structure in 3.0 (and having a good team) is extremely difficult given how signings work now.

A few years ago there was a time in D3 where zone teams were winning championships left and right. I *think* it was shortly after the huge zone thread by gillispie came out that explained how zone worked. That was also the time period D3 Wooden was stacked and the top D3 world (before the reigns went to Naismith) and zone teams won something like 5 out of 6 titles in a row. Again, a well-constructed zone team is extremely difficult to beat at D3, even with a great press team.

Last, the 3-2 zone defense is hands down the BEST defense against 3-pt shooting in this game and there isn't a close second. And the more you go (+) with a 3-2, the tougher it is to hit from behind the arc.

I am trying to only play 2-3 and I agree with Trenton, the key will be to get super speedy guards with ath and def to be successful. I went NT with juniors and I am going on the last season of the rebuild thinking I can make a push to the S-16 this season.But I value ath, def and blk a lot at SF-PF-C and it has paid off. I haven't been able to find good guards so it will hold me back. Recruiting is tougher I think since you truly are going for specific stats. 2-3 helps you in rebonding too.

Does anyone successful in the zone change between the 2-3 & 3-2 as a way to gameplan against teams paint &a perimeter offenses? I thought that was one of the biggest strengths of zone IQ

Posted by zagsrulez on 7/15/2017 12:45:00 PM (view original):
Does anyone successful in the zone change between the 2-3 & 3-2 as a way to gameplan against teams paint &a perimeter offenses? I thought that was one of the biggest strengths of zone IQ

Absolutely.

And dont be afraid to experiment...running a 3-2 (-4 or -5) can also be incredibly effective against teams with good guard play.

I hate to say this but the best 2-3 zone coach I played against was colonels. His guards were always fast.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 7/17/2017 8:00:00 PM (view original):
I hate to say this but the best 2-3 zone coach I played against was colonels. His guards were always fast.

He is no chooche.