ISUr vs DePaul

[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.

[mathewson10]

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.

It is not confusing that people are making 3's just its not realistic for teams to continue making as many. I never said we shouldn't play man. I just said that is the philosophical decision coaches make. Any defense can have pros & cons.

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 agree the fouls need to go down & that relates to coaching & inexperience. I was not bashing anyone. I felt the statement that Muller is a poor coach because he chooses play zone was simply inaccurate since many coaches around the country play zone defense. Based of off the type of players that have been recruited (long, lanky, tall) I imagine zone has always been the plan. (Not to say those builds would not fit a man D)

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.

I agree they should rotate defenses more often & I agree that this team should do a better job of rebounding.

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.

Agreed. I think the talent is there but consistency needs to be there. I'm happy (VCU) & unhappy (the rest of the games) that ISUr plays at the level of their competition.

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.

It should be fun especially if the top 4 teams keep improving before conference play begins.

[mathewson10]

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.

Agreed

[BirdmanBB]

I don't know what you mean when you talk about the VCU game "burning you"....can you expound upon that?

You're not talking about an NCAA at large birth are you?

Absolutely. In terms of straight RPI had we won it would look like (to this point)

ODU 25 w
VCU 7 L
Seton Hall 18 L

So had we not choked on that game, one would argue we could currently have a better looking resume than wichita state's who looks solid at this point.

Utah 20 L
Seton Hall 18 W
Alabama 45 W

Of course we have that nagging loss to Utah state, but I highly doubt that would be a huge negative at the end of the year when the committee is asking, "well who did you play/who did you beat?"

What's done is done, but I wouldn't write off ISU as simply an NIT hopeful as some are doing. There's still room for improvement and games that need to be played.

[shocktheheart]

I don't know what you mean when you talk about the VCU game "burning you"....can you expound upon that?

You're not talking about an NCAA at large birth are you?

Absolutely. In terms of straight RPI had we won it would look like (to this point)

ODU 25 w
VCU 7 L
Seton Hall 18 L

So had we not choked on that game, one would argue we could currently have a better looking resume than wichita state's who looks solid at this point.

Utah 20 L
Seton Hall 18 W
Alabama 45 W

Of course we have that nagging loss to Utah state, but I highly doubt that would be a huge negative at the end of the year when the committee is asking, "well who did you play/who did you beat?"

What's done is done, but I wouldn't write off ISU as simply an NIT hopeful as some are doing. There's still room for improvement and games that need to be played.

You would have the same type of resume as WSU if you beat VCU? WSU's sos is 12 right now, ISUR is 34. WSU is 7-1, ISUR is 5-3. We can play what if's with anyone and any team, but that doesn't get you in the tournament. If WSU comes back and beats Utah they are maybe a top 5 team right now.

[Championz]

Absolutely. In terms of straight RPI had we won it would look like (to this point)

ODU 25 w
VCU 7 L
Seton Hall 18 L

So had we not choked on that game, one would argue we could currently have a better looking resume than wichita state's who looks solid at this point.

Utah 20 L
Seton Hall 18 W
Alabama 45 W

Of course we have that nagging loss to Utah state, but I highly doubt that would be a huge negative at the end of the year when the committee is asking, "well who did you play/who did you beat?"

What's done is done, but I wouldn't write off ISU as simply an NIT hopeful as some are doing. There's still room for improvement and games that need to be played.

Can't tell if serious.