A few weeks ago, UVA was undefeated and leading Duke by 10 when Coach K abandoned his man to man , switching to a 2-3 zone, resulting in a comeback win. NU starts experimenting with the 2-3 in its next game. Coincidence or do you think there may have been a phone call to Durham ?
The Epiphany
- Thread starter docrugby1
- Start date
An interesting coincidence. But is Collins really didn't know how to coach the 2-3 after spending all those years at Duke, then CK figured it out pretty quickly this season. Or stole it from Boeheim.
Difference being, of course, that the 2-3 zone is about 100 years old.
"We can't play man, oh, shoot, let's just play the 2-3. They've all played it before, probably in 4th grade."
(This is not denigrating the 2-3 zone. It is, perhaps literally, "the oldest trick in the book." And it's still tough to play against.)
"We can't play man, oh, shoot, let's just play the 2-3. They've all played it before, probably in 4th grade."
(This is not denigrating the 2-3 zone. It is, perhaps literally, "the oldest trick in the book." And it's still tough to play against.)
CC has brought enthusiasm and recruiting success to NU that a brow beaten BC could not. BC was a brilliant coach ,whose time at NU had run out as a result of recruiting indifference, dismal facilities and a lack of administration support. BC led NU to a modicum of success relative to its history by employing a complicated offense and gimmick defense to occasionally beat more talented teams but in the long run talent reigns supreme.
CC is bringing talent to NU that did not occur in the past. My concern was whether he could win using Duke's system with NU talent, albeit improved. The willingness to use a zone, I believe, is CC's first step to becoming his own man. If you analyze NU's talent , the 2-3 zone is much better suited to utilize Olah's size and minimize his defensive mobility issues. Likewise, Taphorn can now be an integral part of the player rotation
I don't think the 2-3 is the answer but using a defense that allows better use of his personnel, shows progression of CC's coaching maturity
Someone posted, sarcastically, that they didn't want to see the 1-3-1 but I would disagree. I would love to see us be able to go from the 2-3 to man to the 1-3-1. The 1-3-1 can be very effective against teams without an athletic big man accepting over the top passes. I think Skelly would be the ideal player on the baseline in the 1-3-1, an energetic mobile big man would be a lot different than having a small point guard there. CC would have to make sure he balances offense with defense but I could see McIntosh out front with Law and Lindsey on the wings with Olah in the middle. Vassar and Demps could play out front as well with McIntosh on one of the wings occasionally. NU has to think outside the box and maybe CC is reaching that point in his career
I give a big thumbs up for CC's new flexibility. He even admitted that he had to learn how to coach a zone. That is progress that hopefully will continue
CC is bringing talent to NU that did not occur in the past. My concern was whether he could win using Duke's system with NU talent, albeit improved. The willingness to use a zone, I believe, is CC's first step to becoming his own man. If you analyze NU's talent , the 2-3 zone is much better suited to utilize Olah's size and minimize his defensive mobility issues. Likewise, Taphorn can now be an integral part of the player rotation
I don't think the 2-3 is the answer but using a defense that allows better use of his personnel, shows progression of CC's coaching maturity
Someone posted, sarcastically, that they didn't want to see the 1-3-1 but I would disagree. I would love to see us be able to go from the 2-3 to man to the 1-3-1. The 1-3-1 can be very effective against teams without an athletic big man accepting over the top passes. I think Skelly would be the ideal player on the baseline in the 1-3-1, an energetic mobile big man would be a lot different than having a small point guard there. CC would have to make sure he balances offense with defense but I could see McIntosh out front with Law and Lindsey on the wings with Olah in the middle. Vassar and Demps could play out front as well with McIntosh on one of the wings occasionally. NU has to think outside the box and maybe CC is reaching that point in his career
I give a big thumbs up for CC's new flexibility. He even admitted that he had to learn how to coach a zone. That is progress that hopefully will continue
My only concern with your 1-3-1 idea is whether Skelly, mobile as he can be, is mobile enough to close out to either corner to challenge the three pointer. But otherwise, yeah, it'd be a nice change of pace, especially to stop a run or seize the advantage.
If Collins can get NU to play the zone similar to what Boeheim does at Syracuse, IU will look lost offensively Wednesday night. Crean has had IU completely unprepared the last two times they played Syracuse.
what is the line on the indy game?
It will b interesting to see if they stick with a 2-3 with indys hot 3pt shooters and lack of depth at big man.
It will b interesting to see if they stick with a 2-3 with indys hot 3pt shooters and lack of depth at big man.
Very few teams can play the 2-3 the way Syracuse does. Indiana may be hot ,that's why another twist like having the 1-3-1 or another gimmick as a change of pace could be useful
Originally posted by Kelly_32:
If Collins can get NU to play the zone similar to what Boeheim does at Syracuse, IU will look lost offensively Wednesday night. Crean has had IU completely unprepared the last two times they played Syracuse.
Originally posted by Kelly_32:
If Collins can get NU to play the zone similar to what Boeheim does at Syracuse, IU will look lost offensively Wednesday night. Crean has had IU completely unprepared the last two times they played Syracuse.
Not sure why everyone has to credit Boeheim. I was a Syracuse fan growing up, so I recognize that he uses it all the time, but I thought everyone did. Maybe it was because I grew up in upstate NY where everyone followed the Orange. On my YBA and CYO teams growing up, I recall the 2-3 was the staple defense back in the day. We rarely played man. Our offense was run predicated on the assumption that defending teams would play a 2-3 against, us which they did 80% of the time. But, it wasn't just upstate NY. We played 2-3 80% of the time in intramurals at NU and pick up ball. I run in a league now and play pick up about 2-3 times a week (to attempt to keep fit). And 2-3 is played the majority of the time. People go to man to play tighter D. When we get on the floor, we ask, "what are we playing." Someone will sometimes suggest man, and usually, someone will say, "naw, I'm too tired." Everyone knows how to play the 2-3.
What people don't know how to do is to press.
What people don't know how to do is to press.
