I don’t figure we’ll see much zone going forward but I don’t think we executed very well. 17 3PT attempts out of 60 field goals wasn’t nearly enough imo, especially when you factor in all the foul shots, and there was just a ton of settling in the mid-range
Zone Offense
- Thread starter PhillyRU
- Start date
That zone offense was terrible. I've seen better schemes from grade school teams. We have weapons.
The staff understands they need to coach offense right?
The staff understands they need to coach offense right?
This board is so funny. Last game you guys killed RU for horrible defense. Tonight they hold a team to 41% shooting 4/17 on threes and dominate the glass. So of course now you kill them because the offense is terrible.
They shoot 24% from 3. That's basically what they shot tonight.
Forget whether our shots went in or not. Did you think how we ran our zone offense was good, ok or poor?
Forget whether our shots went in or not. Did you think how we ran our zone offense was good, ok or poor?
We allowed a team shooting 35.6% from the field on the season to hit 40.6% today though. I don’t think it was a terrible defensive performance but not exactly a point of pride.
Whichever way you slice it, these performances aren’t really good enough. We haven’t covered in three games and are slipping in efficiency metrics that will likely be quite important come February.
pretty much this. Except for the first few minutes, all we did is pass it around the perimeter and didn’t get it to the short corner. Limited player movement in and out of the high post , limited cutters, zero screens on or off the ball, and posting up guys who can’t post up. Coaching malpractice
We were bad defensively again. Two or three points away from having a third team score a season high against us.
The zone offense philosophy wasn’t bad. The execution was awful.
The players didn’t reverse the ball quick enough. And the high-low was there, but by the time it was seen by the person with the ball, it was usually too late.
IMO, if we see 2-3 zone in the future, put Ace in the high post, Somerville at the low post/dunker. Then have Harper, Hayes, and Martini camp outside the perimeter.
The players didn’t reverse the ball quick enough. And the high-low was there, but by the time it was seen by the person with the ball, it was usually too late.
IMO, if we see 2-3 zone in the future, put Ace in the high post, Somerville at the low post/dunker. Then have Harper, Hayes, and Martini camp outside the perimeter.
Need Somerville to pass the ball once in a while too.
Absolutely
Can’t do the blackhole impression
Especially since he has passing skills
We need kick outs to the corners
Merrimack had open 3s galore all night and they killed us in the paint
Dont get fooled by 64 points..it was a bad defensive effort
Poor defense and a poor offensive strategy against the zone most of the night. RU guards fell in love with their dribble which is not the way to beat the zone. It’s not just about taking more threes. The way to attack the Merrimack zone was flashing a player to the high post with Ace running the baseline. He either gets a three or a dunk when the zone reacts to the high post. The first couple possessions of the second half RU did exactly that with Derkak flashing to the high post and making a great pass to Ace for an openthree and then to the low post to the 5 for an easy shot. So clearly Pike knew the correct strategy, but the players did not execute it except for the first couple plays out of the locker room.
Merrimack had open 3 pointers they missed which likely won't happen against Notre Dame and Alabama.
Actually, Clark hurt Rutgers in the paint with his mid-range and attack game in the first half. Also, mid- major teams will always give their best effort against high majors. Rutgers will not see another team that will play exclusively zone, which has a way of mudding the game. I don't think Pike schemed up a game plan in the way he would against a was quality opponent. Merrimack was survive and move on. Fan concern themselves with style points more than coaches who look at the big picture.
Similar threads
