Our Defense on the last play in reg vs Nova

[WindyCityGoldenEagle]

I love the guy and hope he's here for a long time but that doesnt mean he's perfect. Every coach has a bad game, bad year, etc. I don't think this has been one of Buzz's best seasons for a multitude of reasons but that's been discussed to no end here so I thought I'd ask about a specific play in the Nova game.

Can someone please explain to me why we were playing defense like we needed the ball on our last defensive possession in reg? If not for the bs charge call, this defensive call by Buzz should have cost us the game. To recap, we had just made an unreal comeback to hopefully sneak into ot, there were 4.8 secs left and we have a man guarding the ball and we are face guarding the rest of their players as if we are in need of a steal. I get the argument for having a guy on the ball to prevent an easy pass- fine, even though I don't agree with it as I prefer a center fielder in this situation. Regardless, my beef is given the situation, why are we not forcing their guys to catch the ball going towards their own defensive end? Why are we playing high pressure off the ball as if to deny the inbounds pass? My friend and I were saying it as Nova was lining up to inbound the ball - it was inexcusable to me and a huge mental lapse on the part of Buzz.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

I really think the plan on that play was to not foul. Hopefully delay them a bit getting upcourt, but don't send them to the line with the ability to win it with the clock stopped. It didn't work out. Derrick got blown by in iso and frankly that should have been the end of things. 4.8 seconds is not a lot of time and outside of Tyus Edney, not too many guys go coast-to-coast in that span of time. I think they were playing the odds and lost, but got saved by the ref's call.

[WindyCityGoldenEagle]

Brew - your explanation of what they were trying to do (not foul and delay their progress) presents a direct disconnect between their actual actions. If you are trying to not foul and delay (which I agree they shouldve been doing), why then are you forcing the tempo and taking chances by applying so much off the ball pressure which discourages delay and increases the odds of fouling?

[kneelb4zerg]

Brew - your explanation of what they were trying to do (not foul and delay their progress) presents a direct disconnect between their actual actions. If you are trying to not foul and delay (which I agree they shouldve been doing), why then are you forcing the tempo and taking chances by applying so much off the ball pressure which discourages delay and increases the odds of fouling?

I'm confused, why does off the ball pressure discourage delay? I just thought Buzz wanted to slow them down enough without fouling, a pretty tough task if the guy is that fast with the ball.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

I haven't watched the play again, but as I recall, Derrick pretty much whiffed on Chennault. They pressured in hopes that would slow whomever got the ball, but when Chennault got away from Derrick, it was off to the races.

[TheSultan]

I haven't watched the play again, but as I recall, Derrick pretty much whiffed on Chennault. They pressured in hopes that would slow whomever got the ball, but when Chennault got away from Derrick, it was off to the races.


That's exactly how I remember it. Perhaps it was the wrong call...perhaps it was Derrick...

[WindyCityGoldenEagle]

Just think about it Kneel - When you apply high off the ball pressure, it's a hell of a lot easier for an offensive guy to get by his defender after he's received the ball - you're forcing the tempo by taking this approach which is exactly the opposite of what we shouldve been doing. Brad Stephens is one of the best at this "make them catch it going the other way" in these situations - you apply token pressure around the 3pt line and make sure the offensive player is receiving the ball going back to the inbounder - no need to attempt to deny the inbounds play which can potentially lead to putting the defender ina vulnerable position which is what happened to Derrick.


Btw - I honestly never knew what your name stood for and I was flipping around the tube last night and got locked into Superman 2 which I hadnt seen in ages and low and behond "Kneel before Zerg" was right in front of me. Too funny!

[kneelb4zerg]

Just think about it Kneel - When you apply high off the ball pressure, it's a hell of a lot easier for an offensive guy to get by his defender after he's received the ball - you're forcing the tempo by taking this approach which is exactly the opposite of what we shouldve been doing. Brad Stephens is one of the best at this "make them catch it going the other way" in these situations - you apply token pressure around the 3pt line and make sure the offensive player is receiving the ball going back to the inbounder.


Btw - I honestly never knew what your name stood for and low and behold I was flipping around the tube last night and got locked into Superman 2 which I hadnt seen in ages and low and behond "Kneel before Zerg" was right in front of me. Too funny!

OK, I guess I just didn't get the terminology. I haven't re-watched it either, all I remember is he had a running start, so probably Derrick got caught flat-footed and couldn't catch-up, after which it was up to someone else to step in front and hopefully not foul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8cHljx-Zkw

Kind of stupid, but still funny.

[WindyCityGoldenEagle]

OK, I guess I just didn't get the terminology. I haven't re-watched it either, all I remember is he had a running start, so probably Derrick got caught flat-footed and couldn't catch-up, after which it was up to someone else to step in front and hopefully not foul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8cHljx-Zkw

Kind of stupid, but still funny.

And that's why if you are going to play that off the ball pressure defense prior to the inbound (which is a horrible decision on Buzz's part) than you absolutely must have a center fielder. A real brain cramp on Buzz's part.

I like the moniker - funny/unique.

[IrwinFletcher]

Since no one else went back to look, I did.

MU started out aligned like WindyCity wanted. Defenders had their players in front of them. Jamil briefly had his back to the inbounder in the lane. DWil's man was off to the side, 3 pt line extended. He broke toward the corner, and I think the problem was that DWil didn't follow him. Therefore, when the Nova player got the ball, DWil was a good 12-15 feet away from him. This allowed the ball handler to pick up a lot of speed which then allowed him to blow by DWil.

So to recap, the Nova player did in fact have to go to the ball to catch the pass, but because DWil was too far away to make the player zig zag up the court, he was allowed to dribble fast in a straight line to the bucket.

[WindyCityGoldenEagle]

Thanks for checking Irwin.

I didnt want to get into a what to do with the guy defending the inbounder but this has kind of led to it - if in fact we were applying token pressure (which I would suggest it was more of an aggressive pressure than token pressure but will go with you on this as I have no way of watching the replay), then why are we guarding the inbounder? Who cares about him? Let the ball go back to him all day long. Use the inbounder's defender as a center fielder to cut off a guy in case one of our's gets blown by. Was DW really 15 feet off of him? Wow, I didn't remember it like that - an indictment on DW's defense then - yeesh.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

Thanks for checking Irwin.

I didnt want to get into a what to do with the guy defending the inbounder but this has kind of led to it - if in fact we were applying token pressure (which I would suggest it was more of an aggressive pressure than token pressure but will go with you on this as I have no way of watching the replay), then why are we guarding the inbounder? Who cares about him? Let the ball go back to him all day long. Use the inbounder's defender as a center fielder to cut off a guy in case one of our's gets blown by. Was DW really 15 feet off of him? Wow, I didn't remember it like that - an indictment on DW's defense then - yeesh.

I think that happens mostly due to the Christian Laettner play. Kentucky didn't cover the inbounder which allowed a perfect baseball toss to Laettner, who buried the 18-footer. If you don't cover the inbounder, you allow a free pass, and with 4 seconds left, that's an eternity for a player to catch, make a move, and shoot. The ball won't come back to the inbounder, but you still want someone trying to disrupt the inbounds pass. Every time I see someone leave the inbounder unguarded all I can think is that it opens up the baseball throw. If you cover the inbounder, that really isn't an option, or if they attempt it, it's a blind pass.

[MUMac]

I saw it as Irwin had and commented in the game thread at the time. I faulted Derrick, not the defense called. He was slow to react and out of position. Should have cost the game right there.

[WindyCityGoldenEagle]

Yep definitely depends on the situation as far as when to play a guy on the inbounder and what defense you're running.

The whole sequence was just odd to me and it seemed like it was either a poor selection on buzzs part (which I still think) or really bad execution by our guys or maybe a lil of both.

Watch the Laetner play if you want to see defenders playing scared-they literally stepped away from him when he caught the ball-actually kind of funny on replay.

[Mucrisco]

I really think the plan on that play was to not foul. Hopefully delay them a bit getting upcourt, but don't send them to the line with the ability to win it with the clock stopped. It didn't work out. Derrick got blown by in iso and frankly that should have been the end of things. 4.8 seconds is not a lot of time and outside of Tyus Edney, not too many guys go coast-to-coast in that span of time. I think they were playing the odds and lost, but got saved by the ref's call.

Actually, the general rule is every dribble takes a second. You are able to go baseline to baseline in five dribbles. 4.8 seconds is plenty of time.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

Actually, the general rule is every dribble takes a second. You are able to go baseline to baseline in five dribbles. 4.8 seconds is plenty of time.

It was definitely enough time, but if Derrick stays with Chennault, he should be able to slow him a bit. It looked like a completely botched defensive assignment, but I think the mindset was to slow him down and force 'Nova to have to beat us with a potential off-balance Rotnei Clarke type miracle heave rather than risking putting them on the line. Under the circumstances it didn't work, but if every dribble takes a second as you mention and you can go from baseline to baseline in five dribbles, the thought process of slowing them down a bit makes sense. Didn't work even remotely, but makes sense.

[BLT]

Mistake was giving a right handed dribbler the sideline. Should have wing dammed him into the center channel to slow him down and run him into traffic where there is no time for a pass.

[MayorBeluga]

DWilson failed to get the dribbler to turn his hips which would have forced the dribbler to change directions. Get in front of the dribbler, force him to move left or right and it takes time off the clock. As many have noted, it likely was fear of fouling that caused DWilson to defend the play this way.

Questions - did Buzz intend for the other defenders to help the way they did? Taylor rotates to take the charge while someone else (forget who) left his man and almost blocked the shot. Was it a case where Buzz wanted the help defense even if it meant leaving someone open on the perimeter? Better to have help defense on a layup and lose on a jumper than lose on a foul or layup?

Still an awful charge call by Mike Stephens, as os Gato calls him, the Eddie Hightower wannabe.

[Gato78]

No Mayor. He is Teddy Valentine's mini-me.

[MayorBeluga]

No Mayor. He is Teddy Valentine's mini-me.

Mayor culpa. Mayor culpa. Mayor maxima culpa.

[Mucrisco]

It was definitely enough time, but if Derrick stays with Chennault, he should be able to slow him a bit. It looked like a completely botched defensive assignment, but I think the mindset was to slow him down and force 'Nova to have to beat us with a potential off-balance Rotnei Clarke type miracle heave rather than risking putting them on the line. Under the circumstances it didn't work, but if every dribble takes a second as you mention and you can go from baseline to baseline in five dribbles, the thought process of slowing them down a bit makes sense. Didn't work even remotely, but makes sense.

Which is exactly how the original post wanted the defense to be set up.

Windy,
There are two philosophies. One is to put the man on the ball, and be a crazy person so that the inbounds pass is tough to make. The other is to play center field like you mentioned. Normally, in a dead ball situation, you would want to play center field, since one of the biggest reasons why you play the ball is so that the inbounder can't grab the ball out of net and inbound it quickly, before a press is set up.

However, if I am not mistaken, that play happened right after Mayo's FT's. Since that was the case, even after the time out, the inbounder is still allowed to run the baseline. Therefore, Nova could have draw up a play which passes to another guy who is out of bounds. If there is not a guy guarding the original inbounder, then that guy can run fee, get the inbounds pass, and go up the floor without a defender on him.

Your honor,
What Buzz wants in that situation is this order:

You guard:
1)The hoop
2)The ball
3)ball side help
4)help
5)help

Since the ball and the hoop were becoming the same, you absolutely want Taylor to slide over to help. Normally, the guy who was trying to block the shot should then rotate over to guard Taylor's guy, but since time was running out, the guy took a gamble to try to block the shot.

Some people want the ball to be the first thing stopped. People yell out,"Stop the ball! Stop the ball!" But if you are the last defender back, and you go to stop the ball, you leave the hoop open and allow an easy pass for a uncontested layup. If there was more time on the clock and this play was just in the run of play, some coaches teach you to not leave a dangerous three point, because it is better to give up 2 points rather than 3 points. Buzz is still old school, in this regard, where a layup is an easier shot than a three, so he stops the layup.

[Mucrisco]

Mistake was giving a right handed dribbler the sideline. Should have wing dammed him into the center channel to slow him down and run him into traffic where there is no time for a pass.

Personally, I want him on the sideline, as long as you keep him there. The sideline is the extra defender. Then you can get all your defenders on the strong side of the floor. If he is going up the middle, you have to hug the person you are guarding and it's tougher to help. The mistake was allowing him to catch with his momentum going towards the basket. Like others have said, Derrick needs to force him to catch the ball with his momentum going towards his own baseline.

[MUMac]

I just love reading crisco's disection of plays and technical explanations!

[MayorBeluga]

Crisco - thanks for the description. Once the dribber got DWilson on his hip, the defense adjusted the way Buzz wanted.

The final play of regulation kind of reminds me of the final play against Nova a few years ago in the BET. I believe it was Buzz's first season, and McNeal left his man on the final play to stop ball and a pass was dropped to McNeal's man who layed it in at the buzzer. Result? We lost on a layup.

[BLT]

Personally, I want him on the sideline, as long as you keep him there. The sideline is the extra defender. Then you can get all your defenders on the strong side of the floor. If he is going up the middle, you have to hug the person you are guarding and it's tougher to help. The mistake was allowing him to catch with his momentum going towards the basket. Like others have said, Derrick needs to force him to catch the ball with his momentum going towards his own baseline.

Good description. Obviously two ways to skin a cat. Rick Majerus told me once, I forget which game, maybe the '86 UNC game?, that he learned to cut the right sideline off to turn the man in away from their "on" hand, as they have momentum to the hoop for a running shot or drive. Have to turn them in then. Shooters are taught to get to that seam: think this game, Clark last year, Gtown under Crean when DJ fouled the shooter. All right.

[Mucrisco]

Good description. Obviously two ways to skin a cat. Rick Majerus told me once, I forget which game, maybe the '86 UNC game?, that he learned to cut the right sideline off to turn the hard to turn the man in away from their "on" hand, as they have momentum to the hoop for a running shot or drive. Have to turn them in then. Shooters are taught to get to that seam: think this game, Clark last year, Gtown under Crean when DJ fouled the shooter. All right.

I like that philosophy too. I used to try to do it that way. I found that it is extremely tough to get your players to try to turn them. You have to practice that often. You have to teach them to sprint ahead and cut them off. Personally, I think it's easier for the defender to keep them on the sideline. Then, I saw how Pitino, Billy Donovan, and Shaka Smart set up their press and theirs is designed to keep them on the sideline. That's the great thing about basketball. There are so many ways to do things. Just as long as you believe in what you are doing, you practice what you want accomplished, and your players buy in...

[Goose85]

The mistake was allowing him to catch with his momentum going towards the basket. Like others have said, Derrick needs to force him to catch the ball with his momentum going towards his own baseline.

Great stuff Crisco - thanks for posting.

This part of your breakdown is what I was saying before the inbound. May not be easy, but somehow you have to make them catch the ball without momentum going toward their basket.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

Which is exactly how the original post wanted the defense to be set up.

Going back, you're right. I just addressed post-by-post as it went. Regardless, horrendously handled. Thanks for the excellent explanations.